52D  (JONaRESS,  )  SENATE.  (  Ex.  DOC. 

2d  Session.     \  \    ^o.  54. 


m  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


MESSAGE 

FROM  THE 

PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

TRANSMITTING, 

In  reply  to  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  of  January  23, 1893,  official  cor- 
respondence of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  China,  relating 
to  the  acts  of  Congress  forbidding  immigration  of  Chinese  and  the  treaty 
stipulations  betiveen  the  two  countries. 


February  6,  1893. 一 Read  in  executive  session  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 

Foreign  Relations. 

February  8，  1893. 一 Ordered  to  be  printed  and  recommitted  to  the  Committee  on 

Foreign  Relations. 


To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

I  transmit  herewith  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  on  the  subject 
of  the  official  correspondence  of  the  Government  of  China  with  the 
United  States  relating  to  the  acts  of  Congress  forbidding  immigration 
of  Chinese  and  the  treaty  stipulations  between  the  two  countries,  which 
was  called  for  by  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  dated  January  23,  1893. 

Benj.  Harrison. 

Executive  Mansion, 

Washington,  February  3,  1893. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  3,  1893. 

The  President  ： 

The  Secretary  of  State,  in  pursuance  of  tlie  resolution  of  the  Senate 
of  January  23  last,  directing  him  to  send  to  tlie  Senate^  if  not  incom- 
patible with  the  public  interest,  the  official  correspondence  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  China  with  the  United  -  States  relating  to  the  acts  of  Con- 
gress forbidding  immigration  of  Chinese  and  the  treaty  stipulations 
between  the  two  countries,  lias  tlie  honor  to  inclose  herewith  all  the 
correspondence  tearing  on  the  subject  under  consideration  subsequent 
to  that  submitted  in  Secretary  of  State  Blaine's  report,  dated  January 
27,  1890. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

John  W.  Foster. 


/    I  f  d  lli 


2  '  CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 

List  of  papers. 

1.  Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine,  March  26,  1890. 

2.  Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Blaine,  July  25，  1890. 

3.  Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine,  October  1，  1890. 

4.  Mr.  Blaine  to  Mr.  Tsui,  October  6,  1890. 

5.  Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Blaine,  October  22,  1890. 

6.  Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine,  December  4,  1890. 

7.  Same  to  same,  March  22,  1892. 

8.  Same  to  same,  April  12，  1892. 

9.  Same  to  same,  April  21，  1892. 

10.  Same  to  same,  May  5,  1892. 

11.  Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Blaine,  June  17, 1892. 

12.  Same  to  same,  June  20，  1892. 

13.  Same  to  same,  July  5,  1892. 

14.  Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Foster,  August  18，  1892. 

15.  Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Foster,  November  1,  1892. 

16.  Same  to  same,  November  11，  1892. 

17.  Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Foster,  November  29,  1892. 

18.  Mr.  Wharton  to  Mr.  Tsui,  December  10,  1892. 


No.  1. 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine, 

Chinese  Legation, 
Washington,  March  26, 1890.  (Eeceived  March  28.) 
SiE- :  Under  date  of  the  26th  of  January,  1889，  my  predecessor  sub- 
mitted some  considerations  to  your  Department  upon  tlie  act  of  your 
Congress  of  October  1，  1888.  Mr.  Secretary  Bayard,  on  the  2d  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1889,  referred  to  that  note  as  containing  "  highly  important  mat- 
ters " and  promised  to  "  make  more  extended  reply  ，，  thereto.  But  nearly 
six  months  having  passed  without  a  reply  being  received,  and  in  view  of 
the  advent  meanwhile  of  a  new  administration  of  your  nation,  my  Gov- 
ernment deeming  it  important  that  the  subject  be  freshly  brought  to 
your  attention,  my  predecessor,  under  date  of  July  8，  1889,  submitted 
to  you  further  considerations,  which,  it  was  hoped,  would  bring  about 
some  change  in  the  legislative  and  executive  attitude  of  the  American 
Government.  The  receipt  of  that  note  was  courteously  acknowledged 
on  the  15tli  of  the  same  month,  and  the  assurance  given  that  tlie  sub- 
ject would  "receive  the  very  careful  and  prompt  attention  of  the  De- 
partment." 

I  have  waited  patiently  upon  the  strength  of  this  assurance  for  the 
past  eight  months,  and  should  not  now  break  silence  on  the  subject  if  I 
could  do  so  with  a  pro})er  regard  for  the  instructions  of  my  Government 
and  for  the  condition  of 】ny  unfortunate  countrymen,  whose  ri^lits  and 
interests  are  so  sorely  vexed  by  this  legislation  of  your  Congress  and 
by  the  resulting  action  of  the  executive  department.  When  it  is  borne 
in  mind  tliat  a  year  and  a  half  has  passed  since  your  Congress  and 
President  united  in  a  measure  which  («as  the  Supreme  Court  decided) 
compelled  the  authorities  to  disregard  and  trample  upon  solemn  treaty 
stipulations,  and  din  ing  wliich  time  not  only  the  measure  itself  has  been 
most  rigidly  efilbi'ccd,  but  to  its  severities  have  been  added  by  execu- 
tive action  new  restrictions  upon  Oliinese  subjects  in  the  United  States, 
it  certainly  will  not  surprise  you  if  I  co 川 miinicate  to  you  the  earnest 
and  anxious  desire  of  the  Imperial  Govei  nment  that  I  should  obtain 


CLASSIC 

TV 
•  USM 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


3 


from  you  some  expression  of  the  views  and  intentions  of  your  Govern- 
ment on  this  important  subject. 

In  order  that  I  may  enlist  your  sympathy  with  the  desire  of  my  Gov- 
ernment, and  that  yon  may  be  persuaded  of  the  reasonableness  of  it,  I 
beg  tli at  you  will  indulge  me  while  I  state  some  of  the  effects  of  tlie  act 
of  October  1，  1888，  and  of  the  resulting  policy  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. Although  the  treaty  of  1880  stipulated  that  Chinese  laborers 
then  in  the  United  States  should  abe  allowed  to  go  and  come  of  tlieir 
own  free  will  and  accord/'  and  should  have  tlie  same  treatment  as  otller 
foreigners,  they  cod  formed  to  the  exceptional  provision  of  a  law  wliich 
required  them,  on  departure  for  temporary  visits  to  their  native  laud, 
to  take  a  certificate  from  the  customs  authorities  at  the  port  of  depar- 
ture, descriptive  of  their  person,  and  which  Contained  a  statement  tliat 
tlie  person  to  whom  it  was  issued  was  "entitled  *  *  *  to  return 
and  reenter  the  United  States."  Tlie  official  statistics  show  that  at  the 
time  the  act  of  1888  went  into  effect  there  were  outstanding  at  the  sin- 
gle port  of  San  Francisco  over  twenty  tliousaiicl  of  these  certificates. 
At  that  very  time  there  were  about  six  Liuidred  of  the  holders  of  these 
certificates  wlio  were  on  tlie  high  seas  en  route  for  San  Francisco,  and 
wlio  liad  no  notice  or  means  of  knowledge  of  the  passage  of  the  act  till 
they  reached  that  port ；  and  yet  the  supreine  tribunal  of  your  country 
has  decided  that  it  was  the  duty  of  tlie  authorities  of  the  port  of  San 
Francisco,  under  tlie  act,  to  dishonor  tlieir  own  certilicates  and  turn 
these  poor  laborers  back  from  its  shores  out  upon  the  broad  ocean  and 
force  them  to  seek  a  more  hospitable  liaven  elsewhere. 

The  tens  of  tb  on  sands  of  Chinese  subjects  who  temporarily  left  the 
shores  of  the  United  States,  armed  with  the  signed  and  sealed  assur- 
ance of  this  Government  of  tlieir  right  to  return,  and  relying  upon  its 
good  faith,  in  almost  every  case  left  behind  them  in  this  country  prop- 
erty, business,  families,  relatives,  obligations,  or  contracts,  which  have 
been  imperiled,  broken  up,  or  in  some  shape  injuriously  affected  by 
tlieir  unexpected  aud  uuwarranted  exclusion.  The  vast  liuiaber  of  Chi- 
nese laborers  who  were  in  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  1888  had  come  here  under  the  guaranty  of  solemn  treaty- 
stipulations,  which  allowed  them  "  to  go  and  come  of  their  own  free 
will  and  accord"  and  on  the  solemn  assurance  tliat  they  would  be  main- 
tained in  this  privilege  against  u  legislative  enactment;"  and  under 
this  act,  if  tliey  should  visit  tlieir  native  land,  drawn  tliitlier  by  the  ties 
of  family,  patriotism,  or  business,  they  must  sacrifice  and  abandon  all 
tlieir  interests  and  property  in  tlie  United  States  ；  they  must  choose 
between  a  complete  breaking  up  of  long- established  business  relations 
here,  and  a  perpetual  banishment  from  tlieir  native  land  by  a  continu- 
ous residence  in  this  country. 

The  foregoing  shows  tliat  there  are  three  classes  of  Chinese  laborers 
whose  treaty  rights  liave  been  grievously  impaired  in  different  ways  by 
the  operation  of  the  act  of  1888,  to  wit,  those  who  were  on  the  ocean, 
those  who  were  abroad  holding  return  certificates,  and  those  who  were 
in  tlie  United  States  at  the  time  the  act  was  passed.  But  there  are 
two  other  classes  of  Chinese  subjects  wliose  treaty  rights  have  been 
abrogated  or  impaired  since  tliat  act  was  passed,  not  by  tlie  direct  ap- 
plication of  its  provisions,  but,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  by  new  restrictions 
and  regulations  of  the  executive  department  of  your  Government.  In 
； iny  notes  of  November  5  and  December  16  last  I  have  shown  you  how 
the  transit  of  Chinese  laborers  through  the  United  States  has  been  ob- 
structed and  in  great  measure  cut  off  since  October,  1888,  notwithstand- 
ing the  law  officers  of  your  Government  acknowledge  that  there  has 
S.  Ex.  2  31 


4 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


been  no  legislation  of  your  Congress,  either  in  1882，  in  1884,  or  in  1888， 
which  in  the  sligliest  degree  affects  the  treaty  rights  on  this  subject. 
It  has  been  serious  enough  when  tlie  Imperial  Government  beheld  the 
manifest  intention  of  your  Congress  in  the  years  named  to  obstruct  and 
finally  abrogate  the  treaties  existing  between  the  two  nations;  but  it 
regards  with  real  alarm  the  apparent  disposition  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment to  go  even  beyond  tlie  enactments  of  Congress  in  the  same 
direction.  In  addition  to  the  stoppage  or  obstruction  of  transit,  the 
Chinese  merchants  who  have  been  established  in  the  United  States,  as 
well  as  those  in  China  or  in  foreign  nations  who  have  trade  relations 
with  this  country,  have  encountered  much  harsher  treatment  and  in- 
creasing' embarrassment  during  the  past  year  and  a  half  from  the  cus- 
toms authorities,  and  it  lias  become  iniicli  more  difficult  than  formerly 
for  them  to  carry  on  commerce  in  and  with  tlie  United  States. 

Such,  Mr.  Secretary,  are  some  of  the  losses,  injuries,  and  hardships 
which  have  been  and  are  being  suffered  by  my  countrymen  as  the  direct 
and  indirect  effects  of  tlie  passage  of  tlie  act  of  1888，  and  which,  I  trust, 
will  more  fully  explain  to  you  the  anxious  desire  of  my  Government  to 
receive  from  you  spme  expression  of  the  views  and  intentions  of  your 
Government  on  the  important  subjects  communicated  in  the  cited  notes 
of  this  legation.  But  I  must  ask  your  indulgence  while  I  attempt,  as 
briefly  as  I  cau,  to  sliow  you  the  reverse  side  of  this  question,  to  wit, 
how  the  American  Government  expects  and  deraauds  the  treaties  to 
be  observed  in  China,  and  how,  in  fact,  tlie  Imperial  Government  does 
observe  and  enforce  tliem.  And  for  tliis  purpose  I  confine  myself  to 
tlie  past  two  years,  within  which  the  most  objectionable  legislation  and 
restrictions  have  been  adopted  in  the  United  States. 

The  two  classes  of  American  interests  represented  in  China  are, 
first,  the  missionaries  and  their  propaganda,  and,  second,  tlie  merchants 
and  tlieir  commerce.  I  need  not  cite  facts  to  show  one  so  intelligent  in 
the  world's  affairs  as  you  that  the  most  fruitful  source  of  trouble  and 
embarrassment  for  China  in  its  relations  witli  the  treaty  powers  has 
been  the  presence  in  my  country  of  the  missionaries.  In  substantia- 
tion of  tliis,  your  own  worthy  minister  quotes  to  your  predecessor  tlie 
language  of  Prince  KuDg1  in  these  words : 

The  missionary  question  affects  the  whole  question  of  peaceful  relations  with  for- 
eign powers  *  *  *  the  wliole  question  of  their  trade.  (Foreign  Eelations,  1887, 
P.  197.) 

But,  notwithstanding  the  prejudices  of  our  common  people  and  the 
embarrassinents  which  constantly  surround  tlie  authorities,  the  whole 
power  of  the  Government  has  at  all  times  been  exercised  to  protect  the 
lives  and  property  of  this  disturbing  class  of  foreigners.  So  far  as  I 
can  remember,  not  a  single  American  missionary  lias  lost  his  life,  none 
of  their  treaty  guaranties  liave  been  violated  with  either  the  consent 
or  coiinivarice  of  tlie  Government,  and  every  dollar  of  loss  which  they 
have  sustained  from  violence  brought  about  through  either  tlieir  owu 
iminndmice  or  the  sudden  outbursts  of  the  populace  has  been  reim- 
bursed to  them  by  the  Government.  And  this  has  not  only  been  true 
ns  to  tlie  ])nst  two  years,  but  through  every  year  since  tlie  first  treaty 
lx'1  ween  1  lie  t  wo  n;ii  ions  \v;is  signed,  in  IS  11.  I  need  wot  j)oiiit  oul  liow 
marked  lins  Ikmmi  \  lie  coiH  rast  in  this  ivspprl  of  tlie  treatment  of  (Jl)i- 
li esc  residents  in  the  I 了 iiifcl  States.  And  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the 
defense  of  tlie  claiins  of  tlie  missioiiaiics  t lie  Aineri (； an  niinistor  and 
liis  (iovcinuiciit  lmvc  not  been  (toiilrnt  will)  rc(iuiring  a.  strict,  observ- 
ance of  treaty  stipulations,  but  have  gone  beyoud  tliem  aud  deuiaiided 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


5 


protection  and  indemnity  in  cases  where  they  admit  that  the  terms  of 
the  treaties  do  not  justify  such  demands. 

It  has  been  continuously  admitted  tliat  "the  true  construction  of  the 
treaties"  does  not  secure  to  the  missionaries  the  right  of  permanent 
residence  or  ownership  of  real  estate  in  the  interior  of  China;  and  yet, 
because  the  local  authorities  liave  tolerated  their  residences  in  isolated 
cases,  it  is  insisted  that  the  American  missionary  thereby  a  acquires 
vested  rights,  which  Ms  own  Government  and  tlie  Imperial  Govern- 
ment also  are  bound  to  secure  to  him  if  attacked."  (Foreign  ； Relations, 
1888,  Vol.  I，  pp.  220，  271.)  And  we  find  that  the  American  minister  at 
Peking  has  in  the  past  two  years  been  very  zealous  in  demanding  the 
protection  of  missionaries,  reimbursemeDt  of  their  losses,  and  reinstate- 
ment on  tlieir  lands  in  cases  where  it  is  admitted  that  the  terms  of  the 
treaties  do  not  sustain  such  demands,  his  position  being  that  though 
"the  United  States  could  not,  as  a  matter  of  treaty  stipulation,  insist" 
upon  such  treatment  being  awarded  to  American  missionaries,  yet 
where  residence  and  ownership  of  land  are  "accorded  to  citizens  or 
subjects  of  other  foreign  powers  under  tlie  favored-nation  clause,  exact 
equality  should  be  insisted  upon."  And  the  minister  might  well  take 
such  an  advanced  position,  when  it  appears  that  lie  lias  been  instructed 
by  his  chief  to  obtain  for  his  countrymen  "no  less  measure  of  privilege 
than  is  granted  by  treaty,  conferred  by  favor,  or  procured  througk  use 
and  custom  for  the  missionaries  of  any  other  nation  or  creed." 

And  this  broad  doctrine  is  advocated  and  insisted  upon  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  at  a  time  when  the  Congress,  tlie  Executive,  and  the 
Supreme  Court  of  liis  country  are  setting  it  at  defiance  in  cases  where 
its  application  is  invoked  in  behalf  of  Obinese  residents  in  the  United 
States.  Your  immediate  predecessor  even  uses  the  freedom  extended 
by  China  to  foreigners  in  its  treaties  as  an  argument  for  tlie  enlarged 
demands  of  the  uiinister  iu  these  words : 

When  Cliina  was  opened  by  treaties  with  foreign  powers  to  the  entrance  and  resi- 
dence of  foreigners,  it  was  inevitable  tliat  the  restricted  limits  of  residence  aud 
business  prescribed  in  tliese  treaties  should  be  extended.  (Foreign  Relations,  1888， 
pp.  266，  272,  301，  325.) 

It  would  seem  natural  to  presume  that  the  "  inevitable  ，，  effect  which, 
the  Secretary  here  notes  was  the  logical  and  customary  experience 
among  western  nations  concerning  treaty  concessions  and  privileges. 
But,  unfortunately,  China  is  compelled  to  look  elsewhere  than  to  the 
United  States  for  a  realization  of  the  experience  so  forcibly  and  une- 
quivocally assumed  by  this  eminent  authority.  In  1868  the  United 
States,  for  the  first  time,  by  treaty  guaranties,  opened  its  territory  to 
tlie  entrance  and  residence  of  Chinese  upon  the  same  terms  as  were  ex- 
tended to  the  subjects  of  the  most  favored  Dation.  But  the  "  inevita- 
ble ，， result  of  sucli  an  act,  as  announced  by  the  American  Secretary  of 
State,  was  not  realized  in  this  country.  So  far  from  the  privileges  of 
"residence  and  business  prescribed  in  the  treaty"  being  "extended," 
they  liave  been  steadily  and  persistently  restricted  ；  first,  by  peaceful 
treaty  negotiations  in  1880:  then  by  hostile  legislation  in  1882  and 
1884  5  and,  finally,  by  positive  abrogation  by  Congress  in  1888,  ap- 
proved by  the  Executive  and  sanctioned  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

Bat,  notwitlistauding  this  contrary  treatment  of  the  Chinese  in  the 
United  States,  the  Imperial  Government  has  steadily  and  uuiformly 
recognized  and  enforced,  not  only  its  plain  treaty  stipulations  respect- 
ing this  disturbing  element  introduced  into  its  territory,  but,  in  its  de- 
sire to  deal  justly  and  pursue  friendly  relations  witli  America,  it  has 
gone  beyond  the  treaties  and  yielded  to  the  foregoing  extreme  and 


6 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


illogical  demands  of  your  Governnient.  And  I  am  gratified  to  kuoAv 
that  this  spirit  of  conciliation  lias  been  recognized  by  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  State  in  the  following  words : 

Experience  shows  that  by  a  moderate  amount  of  conciliation  and  good  will  the 
rights  of  foreigners  will  be  gradually  extended  and  interpreted  by  the  Chinese  in  a 
more  liberal  spirit  aud  beyoud  tlie  limits  of  the  treaty  ports.  (Foreign  Relations, 
1888,  p.  310.) 

Let  us  now  turn  for  a  few  moments  to  the  position  of  the  American 
Goveruiiient  iu  respect  to  the  rights  of  its  merchants  and  commerce  in 
China  and  tlie  treatment  they  receive  from  the  authorities  there.  It  is 
natural  tliat  tlie  American  Groverimient  should  take  a  deep  interest  in 
this  trade  because  of  its  extent  and  importance.  Mr.  Den  by  ，  in  a  dis- 
patch dated  July  14，  1888,  reports  on  the  foreign  trade  of  China  that  the 
exports  aud  tlie  imports  from  tlie  United  States  stand  second  in  vol- 
ume, or  next  to  those  of  Great  Britain.  Yet  in  the  past  two  years  or 
more  I  am  not  aware  of  any  specific  complaint  of  injustice  or  hardship 
suffered  by  a  single  American  mercliant  in  China,  or  any  allegation  of 
different  treatment  extended  to  tliein  than  to  all  other  foreign  mer- 
chants. The  only  question  of  trade  which  has  arisen  between  the  two 
Goveriiinents  has  been  on  the  importation  and  regulation  of  trade  in 
kerosene.  Owing  to  its  explosive  character,  many  lives  have  been  lost 
aud  much  property  destroyed  in  Ghina?  and  certain  of  tlie  provincial 
authorities  have  urged  upon  the  Imperial  Government  the  restriction 
of  its  importation  by  governmental  control  of  its  sale  and  by  internal 
taxation  ；  and,  in  furtherance  of  these  views,  one  of  tlie  viceroys,  in 
memorializing  the  Throne,  referred  to  tlie  position  assumed  by  tlie 
United  States  in  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  iinmigratiou,  and  said : 

If  they  can  prohibit  our  going  there  because  Chinese  labor  is  injurious  to  their  in- 
terests, we  have  an  equal  right  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  kerosene  when  it  is 
injurious  to  us. 

But  Minister  Denby,  usually  so  intelligent  respecting  Chinese  mat- 
ters, is  oblivious  to  the  force  of  this  argument  and  transmits  it  to  Wash- 
ington, with  the  criticism  that  it  is  a  "  stupid  memorial. "  He  follows  it 
up  with  an  earnest  protest  against  tlie  right  of  Cliina  to  levy  an  internal 
discriminating  tax  upon  kerosene  after  it  lias  left  the  foreign  merchant 
and  passed  into  the  interior,  notwithstanding  he  admits  that  it  is  and 
long  has  been  the  law  and  practice  of  China  that  "once  foreign  goods 
have  entered  China  and  become  the  property  of  Chinese  merchants, 
their  taxation  is  a  matter  wholly  and  solely  within  the  direction  of 
China, "  and  notwithstanding  he  shows  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  tlie 
United  States  has  recognized  substantially  the  same  power  of  taxation 
as  belonging  to  tlie  States  of  your  Uuion.  He  further  claims  that  such 
taxation  is  a  violation  of  the  spirit  and  intent  of  the  treaty,  though  lie 
does  not  contend  that  any  specific  clause  is  infringed  thereby.  He 
maintains  that  "the  interpretation  (of  treaties)  shall  be  favorable  rather 
than  odious  ；  *  *  *  that  the  reason  of  the  treaty  shall  prevail." 
And  in  tliese  positions  he  is  supported  by  the  Secretary  of  State. 
(Foreign  Relations,  1887,  ]").  1915,  225;  1888,  267，  286.) 

If  tli is  ])()lic,y  respect  i ii^  treaties  whicli  was  urged  upon  China  had 
been  follow  ed  in  tlie  United  St}il(ks,  liow  (lii'lcrcnt  would  be  the  inter- 
national relations  of  the  two  countries  to-day.  Ohinn  has  welcomed 
A  in*  ricnii  coniiiicicc  ;iiid  ))l;icc(l  its  inci'cliMiits  upon  :in  rquul  l'oot  iii'u'  in 
its  ports  with  tlios (；  of  the  inost  lriciHlly  and  vokmI  nation,  and  tlie 
only  (|ii<'st  ion  of  dilii'crcMcc,  vvliicli  has  arisen  is  rcsjx'ciiii^  a  matter  of 
iiitcinal  1a\;it ion,  iii  whicli  China  I'ollmvs  tlie  s:mie  la、v  and  practice  as 
is  allowed  in  the  United  States.    Contrast  this  with  the  treatment  of 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


7 


Chinese  merchants  in  this  country.  Altliough  by  express  treaty  stipu- 
lation tliey  are  in  the  United  States  to  be  "  allowed  to  go  and  come  of 
their  own  free  will  and  accord,"  and  are  guarantied  the  treatment £' ac- 
corded to  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation,"  for  the 
past  eight  years  no  such  treatment  has  been  extended  to  them.  While 
the  merchants  of  all  other  nations  of  the  earth  are  permitted  free  and 
unobstructed  entrance  into  and  departure  from  the  ports  of  the  United 
States,  the  Chinese  merchant  has  by  the  legislation  of  your  Congress  had 
thrown  around  him  the  most  obstructive,  embarrassing,  and  humiliat- 
ing restrictions.  He  is  treated  by  the  customs  authorities  with,  irmch 
the  same  surveillance  as  is  extended  to  vagrants  or  criminals  ；  and  be- 
fore he  is  permitted  to  land  lie  is  required  to  produce  a  certificate,  the 
strict  conditions  of  which  make  it  difficult  and  expensive  to  comply 
with,  and  humiliating  and  objectionable  to  the  man  of  honor  and  self- 
respect,  it  being  necessary  to  set  forth  tlie  amount  and  details  of  the 
business  in  which  lie  is  and  has  been  engaged,  with  a  statement  of  his 
family  history  and  occupation,  and  all  these  matters  are  subject  to  tlie 
examination  and  approval  of  the  American  cousul  at  the  Chinese  or 
foreign  port  whence  lie  sails. 

Only  within  the  present  montti  two  of  the  most  respectable  Chinese 
merchants  of  Hongkong  arrived  in  tlie  port  of  Sail  Francisco,  desiring 
to  land  temporarily  and  visit  their  customers  in  the  various  cities  of  the 
Paciflc  States  j  but,  because  tliey  did  not  bring  with  them  from  that  for- 
eign port  the  certificate  above  described,  whicli  it  was  impossible  for 
them  to  obtain,  tliey  were  kept  as  prisoners  on  board  the  vessel  upon 
whicli  they  arrived  until  it  sailed  on  its  return  voyage,  notwithstanding 
the  collector  of  customs  was  satisfied  they  belonged  to  the  exempt  class 
entitled,  under  the  treaty^  to  the  same  free  entrance  as  a  British  or 
other  merchant,  and  tliey  were  driven  back  upon  their  long  voyage 
across  the  Pacific  Ocean  ；  a  condition  of  tilings  which  your  President 
four  years  ago  recognized  as  contrary  to  the  treaty  and  urged  your 
Congress  to  rectify.  (Senate  Ex.  Doc.  118，  Forty-nintli  Congress,  first 
session.) 

Sucli，  Mr.  Secretary,  are  some  of  the  contrasts  in  the  observance  and 
enforcement  of  treaty  rights  between  the  two  nations.  Can  you  wouder 
that  the  Imperial  Government  is  growing  restive  and  impatient  under 
such  dissimilarity  of  treatment,  and  is  urging  me  to  obtain  from  you 
some  satisfactory  explanation  of  tlie  conduct  of  the  American  author- 
ities in  tlie  past  and  some  assurance  of  the  course  to  be  pursued  in  the 
future? 

You  will  observe  that  the  object  had  in  view  in  the  cited  note  of  this 
legation  addressed  to  your  predecessor  was  to  induce  tlie  Executive  to 
recommend  Congress  to  undo  tlie  wrong  and  hardships  inflicted  upon 
my  countrymen  by  its  legislation  ；  and  in  tlie  subsequent  note  addressed 
to  you  this  object  was  brought  to  your  attention,  and  the  hope  was 
expressed  that,  with  your  earnest  desire  to  deal  justly  and  to  "  main- 
tain the  public  duty  and  the  public  honor/'  you  would  find  a  speedy 
method  of  satisfying  tlie  reasonable  expectations  of  the  Imperial  Gov- 
ernment. In  view  of  the  fact  that  one  session  of  your  Congress  has 
passed  and  auotlier  is  already  well  advanced  without  any  communica- 
tion from  the  President,  and  of  your  continued  silence  respecting  my 
notes,  I 謹 being  reluctantly  forced  to  tlie  conclusion  that  you  regard 
that  method  of  adjustment  as  impracticable.  It  will  make  me  happy  to 
be  informed  that  this  conclusion  is  erroneous,  and  that  your  Congress 
can  yet  be  induced  to  "maiiitain  the  public  duty  and  tlie  public  lionor." 


8 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


But  if  tliis,  unfortunately,  may  not  be,  then  I  can  see  only  one  other 
proper  solution,  and  that  the  one  indicated  in  the  fifth  point  of  my  pred- 
ecessor's note  of  July  8，  1889.  The  public  law  of  all  nations  recognizes 
the  right  of  China  to  resort  to  retaliation  for  these  violated  treaty  guar- 
anties, and  such  a  course  applied  to  the  American  missionaries  and 
niercliauts  has  been  recomineuded  to  the  Imperial  Government  by  many 
of  its  statesmen  ；  but  its  long-maintained  friendship  for  the  United 
States,  and  its  desire  to  observe  a  more  humane  and  elevated  standard 
of  intercourse  with  tlie  nations  of  the  world,  point  to  a  better  method 
of  adjustment.  Conscious  that  it  has  religiously  kept  faith  with  all  its 
treaty  pledges  towards  your  country,  my  Government  is  persuaded  that 
America  will  not  be  blind  to  its  own  obligations  nor  deaf  to  the  appeals 
made  to  it  on  belialf  of  the  Chinese  subjects  who  have  been  so  griev- 
ously injured  in  their  treaty  rights  by  tlie  legislation  of  Congress. 

It  is  a  principle  of  public  law,  recognized,  I  believe,  by  all  interna- 
tional writers,  that  a  treaty  between  two  indei)eiideiit  nations  is  a  con- 
tract, and  that  the  nation  which  fails  to  execute  or  violates  it  is  re- 
sponsible to  tlie  other  for  all  injuries  sufi'ered  by  its  subjects  thereby, 
and  that  it  can  not  escape  responsibility  because  of  the  action  or  failure 
of  action  of  any  internal  power  or  authority  in  its  system  of  govern- 
meut.  But  I  need  not  quote  any  foreign  publicists  on  this  subject, 
because  your  own  country  furnishes  abundant  authority  to  sustain  this 
position.  The  great  American  law  writer  Wlieaton,  whose  wisdom 
and  justice  are  recognized  tlirougliout  all  countries,  says: 

The  King  (or  the  President)  can  not  compel  the  Chambers  (or  Congress),  neither 
can  he  compel  tlie  courts  ；  bat  the  nation  is  not  tlie  less  responsible  for  the  breach  of 
faith  thus  arising  out  of  the  discordant  action  of  tlie  international  machinery  of  its 
constitution.    (Lawrence's  Wheaton,  p.  359.) 

Citation  has  already  been  made  of  tlie  declarations  of  the  Solicitor  of 
your  own  Department  to  the  same  effect  in  even  strouger  language. 
And  it  seems  that  the  distinguislied  statesmen  who  have  preceded  you 
in  your  great  office  have  held  the  same  just  principle.  I  need  only 
quote  the  words  of  Mr.  Secretary  Fish  : 

The  foreign  nation  whose  rights  are  invaded  thereby  [by  legislation  of  Congress] 
has  no  less  cause  of  complaint  and  no  less  ri»lit  to  decline  to  recognize  any  internal 
legislation  wbicli  presumes  to  limit  or  curtail  rights  accorded  by  treaty.  (AVhartou, 
section  138.) 

But  the  Supreme  Court  of  your  country,  in  the  decision  in  whieli  it 
sustained  the  act  of  1888,  has  been  very  explicit  in  recognizing  this 
principle.  It  declares  that  "a  treaty  *  *  *  is  in  its  nature  a  con- 
tract between  nations,"  and  that  "it  must  be  conceded  tliat  the  act  of 
1888  is  in  contravention  of  ex]>rcss  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1S(5S 
and  of  the  supplemental  treaty  of  1880/'  and,  although  the  act  of  Con- 
,2i  ('、s  is  binding  upon  the  internal  authorities,  that  act  does  justify 
c()in])laiiit  on  tlie  part  of  the  other  con t meting  party.  And  this  doc- 
trine is  made  more  clear  by  tlie  】（"mie(L  Aiiieri ('； m  judges  whose  opin- 
ions are  cited  approvingly  by  the  Supreme  Court.  Mr.  Justice  Curtis 
says: 

The  Hovwig'i  whom  and  tho  United  States  a  treaty  has  been  made  has  a 

ri^lit  to  (ixpt; (； t  its  stipulutioiiH  to  bo  koj)t  with  scrupulous  good  faith.  (2  Curtis, 
C.  C,  456.) 

And  again  he  says : 

The  responsibility  of  the  Government  to  a  foreign  nation  for  tho  exercise  of  these 
y)ow«Ts  fhy  l«  ^i si ,i t ion)  *  "  "  in  to  met,  .-md  jii.slilicd  to  t'lio  foreign  ruiiion 
uccordiii^  to  thu  ro(|iiircmonts  ol"  tho  rules  ol'  public  law.    (19  Howard,  629.) 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


9 


And  the  Supreme  Court  has  held : 

A  treaty  is  primarily  a  compact  between  independent  nations.  It  depends  for  the 
enforcement  of  its  provisions  on  the  interest  and  the  honor  of  the  governments 
which  are  parties  to  it.  If  this  fails,  its  infraction  becomes  the  subject  of  inter- 
national negotiations  and  reclamations,  so  far  us  the  injured  party  chooses  to  seek 
redress.    (112  U.  S.  R.,  598.) 

And  further : 

If  the  country  with  which  the  treaty  is  made  is  dissatisfied  with  the  action  of  the 
legislative  department,  it  may  present  its  complaint  to  the  executive  head  of  the 
government  and  take  such,  other  measures  as  it  may  deem  essential  for  the  protec- 
tion of  its  interests.    (124  U.  S.  R.，  194.) 

To  the  foregoing  I  must  add  the  declarations  of  two  of  the  present 
members  of  that  court.  Justice  Miller  says，  as  to  reclamations  grow- 
ing out  of  legislative  violation  of  treaties : 

Questions  of  this  class  are  international  questions,  and  are  to  be  settled  between 
the  foreign  nations  interested  in  the  treaties  and  the  political  department  of  our 
Government.    (1  Woolworth,  156.) 

And  Justice  Blatchforcl  says : 

Congress  legislates  *  *  *  subject  to  the  responsibilities  of  this  Government, 
in  its  national  character,  for  anv  breach,  of  its  faith  with  foreign  nations.  (8  Blatcli- 
ford,  310.) 

My  predecessor  expressed  Ms  amazement  that  the  Supreme  Court 
should  announce  the  doctrine  that  the  act  of  Congress  must  be  obeyed 
though  it  is  in  plain  violation  of  the  treaty,  and  that  surprise  has  been 
shared  by  my  Government  ；  but  it  is  my  duty  to  do  justice  to  this  high 
tribunal.  I  must  express  my  profound  obligations  to  it  for  making  tlie 
farther  declarations  in  its  opinion  given  above,  but  especially  for  citing 
the  decisions  from  which  I  have  just  quoted.  These  show  that  this  au- 
gust body,  while  it  confesses  its  obligation  to  enforce  the  will  of  Con- 
gress within  the  United  States,  recognizes  a  broader  and  higher  obliga- 
tion and  responsibility  as  resting  upon  the  American  Government ― au 
obligation  which  requires  it  to  see  that  the  stipulations  of  its  treaties 
are  "  kept  with  scrupulous  good  faith,"  and  a  responsibility  which  de- 
mands that  "  any  breach  of  its  faith  with  foreign  nations  is  to  be  met 
and  justified  *  *  *  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  rules  of 
public  law."  Hence,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  present  this  view  of  the  question 
to  you,  with  the  utmost  confidence  in  your  readiness  to  accept  whatever 
responsibilities  have  attached  to  your  Government  for  the  "  breach  of 
its  faith  "  as  the  resulting  act  of  the  legislation  of  your  Congress,  sup- 
ported, as  I  am,  in  my  demand,  not  only  by  the  international  authority 
of  all  nations,  but  by  your  own  Department  and  by  the  highest  tribunal 
and  judges  of  your  own  nation. 

I  have  shown  you  how  the  legislation  of  your  Congress,  which  is  con- 
ceded by  your  Supreme  Court  to  be  in  violation  of  the  treaties,  has  im- 
paired or  destroyed  the  rights  and  property  interests  of  the  three  classes 
of  Chinese  laborers  described,  as  well  as  of  Chinese  subjects  entitled  to 
free  transit  through  the  United  States  and  of  Chinese  merchants  ob- 
structed in  their  business  and  denied  the  privileges  extended  to  those 
of  other  nations.  I  abstain  for  the  present  from  presenting  any  formal 
estimate  of  damages  and  losses  sustained  by  the  above  classes  of  sub- 
jects through  the  legislative  infriiigeiiient  of  the  treaties.  I  shall  await 
your  reply  to  this  and  the  previous  notes  of  this  legation,  in  the  hope 
that  even  yet  a  metliod  may  be  found  of  undoing:  the  wrongful  legisla- 
tion and  restoring  to  their  treaty  rights  the  Chinese  subjects  now  in,  or 
entitled  to  come  into,  the  United  States.  But,  whatever  may  be  the  ulti- 
mate decision  of  your  Government  on  this  poiut,  I  am  persuaded  that 


10 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


I  have  given  you  such,  cogent  reasons  to  support  the  expectation  of  the 
Imperial  Government  to  be  informed  without  further  delay  of  tlie  views 
and  intentions  of  your  Executive  respecting  the  treaty  obligations 
toward  China,  that  you  will  favor  me  with  an  early  communication  on 
tlie  subject. 

I  improve,  etc., 

Tsui  Kwo  Yin. 


No.  2. 

Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Blaine. 

No.  1123.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Pelcing,  July  25，  1890.  ( Received  September  22.) 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  a  translation  of  a  communication 
bearing  date  June  16，  1890，  lately  sent  to  me  by  the  Tsung-li  Yamen ； 
also  a  translation  of  another  coinmunication  bearing  date  June  17，  1890; 
also  copies  of  my  replies  to  these  two  communications.  Tlie  delay  in 
forwarding  these  papers  was  caused  by  my  absence  from  Peking.  It 
will  be  seen  that  the  first  of  these  communications  relates  mainly  to  the 
act  of  October,  1888,  being  the  Chinese  exclusion  act,  and  that  it  recites 
tliat  substantially  similar  inquiries  were  made  by  the  Chinese  minister 
at  Washington  of  yourself  and  of  your  predecessor.  While  it  must  be 
admitted  that  under  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1880  it  is  entirely 
competent  for  the  yameii  to  address  complaints  to  me  touching  any  leg- 
islative act,  nevertheless,  under  the  circumstances,  it  seemed  prudent 
for  me  not  to  take  up  the  proposed  discussion  until  I  had  presented  the 
matter  to  you  and  received  your  instructions.  I  answered  the  yamen 
in  that  sense.  The  communication  of  June  17  is  mostly  directed 
against  the  lately  proposed  Chinese  enumeration  bill,  and  the 
San  Fraucisco  ordinance  which  has  for  its  purpose  to  confine  Chinese 
residents  to  certain  designated  localities.  I  liave  replied  to  the  yamen 
that  ray  information  was  that  the  enumeration  bill  had  been  laid  on 
the  table  in  tlie  Senate,  and  that  tlie  ordinance  mentioned  would  be 
tested  in  the  courts  before  any  action  would  be  had  under  it.  It  seemed 
to 】ne  unnecessary  to  discuss  at  this  time  the  provisions  of  either 
measure. 

This  conduct  is  in  accordance  with  the  treaty,  which  applies  only  to 
measures  "as  affected." 
I  have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


[Indlosure  1  in  No.  1123 .—Translation . ] 
The  T8ung-U-yamen  to  Mr.  Denby, 

June  16,  1890. 

Your  Excellkncy:  Research  reveals  the  fact  that  all  the  treaties  entered  into  be- 
tween ( liina  ;mkI  tlie  United  States,  beginning  with  that'  of  the  twoiity-fomth  Tno 
Kicni^  nsl  I,  w.-.st (-i  n  stvlc)  ；  tlicn  that  of  tlio'ci^lith  ILsiouTen^  (1858);  th;it  of  tlio 
ni'vriitli  Ticii--  Chit  (ISfiS),  ； md  that  of  the  sixth  Kuang-hsii  (1880),  four  in  all,  oi'ig- 
iiial'.'i  on  l  he  pail  ol  lii''  I  nil.'d  Sl:itrs.  I'm  it  lu-i',  I  lie  jtioposcd  I  rent  v,  the  (Ir.'il't 
w  lici i-of  \v;ih  jointly-  (liscusscd  ]>y  us  in  tho  year  KiianjLj-lisii  (1888),  was  also  put  for- 
ward 1>\  I  la;  I  )c]t:u  t  niciil  ol'  Stntr  under  (lie  i;isi  iuliniiiistration,  tlio  original  idea  not 
coiniii-  IVoni  (  hin.'i.  Xol  w  i t lisl andini;  t  his,  his  (ixccJlcncy,  the  fonuor  rrcsident, 
set  this  treaty  asido,  and  without  inoiuonition  put  iu  operation  a  new  statute  abso- 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


11 


lute】y  prohibiting  the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers  into  the  United  States,  a  statute 
widely  at  variation  with  the  Chinese- American  treaty  of  the  seventh.  Tung  Chit  (1868)， 
and  a  Violation  of  the  treaty  of  the  sixth  Kuang-lisii,  wherein  China  authorized  the 
restriction  by  the  United  States  of  the  immigration  of  Chinese  laborers.  The  fifth 
article  of  the  treaty  entered  into  between  Cliina  and  the  United  States  in  the  sev- 
enth year  of  Tung  Chit  (1868)  speaks  of  the  mutual  advantage  of  the  free  migra- 
tion and  emigration  of  their  citizens  and  subjects,  respectively,  from  the  one  coun- 
try to  the  other,  for  the  purposes  of  curiosity,  of  trade,  or  as  permanent  residents. 
The  sixth  article  further  says,  *  *  *  u  Cliinese  subjects  visiting  or  residing 
in  the  United  States  shall  enjoy  the  same  privileges,  immunities,  and  exemptions  in 
respect  to  travel  or  residence  as  may  there  be  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  or  subjects 
of  tlie  most  ' favored  nation/"  Again,  the  treaty  of  Kuaug-lisii  (1880)  between 
China  and  the  United  States  says  that  whenever  the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers 
to  the  United  States,  or  their  residence  therein,  affects  or  threatens  to  affect,  the 
interests  of  that  country,  or  to  endau^er  the  good  order  of  any  locality  within 
the  territory  thereof,  the  Government  of  China  agrees  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  may  regulate,  limit,  or  suspend  such  coming  or  residence,  but  may  not 
absolutely  prohibit  it.  The  limitation  or  suspension  shall  be  reasonable.  Under 
these  circumstances,  the  ratification  by  liis  excellency,  the  former  President,  ou  the 
26  th  day  of  the  eighth  moon  last  year  (western  style,  tlie  1st  of  October),  of  the  statute 
enacted  by  Congress  prohibiting  immigration  of  Cliinese  laborers  is  beyond  belief. 
Further,  this  yainori  had  previously,  viz,  on  the  loth  day  of  the  eighth  moon  of  that 
year  (September  19),  sent  a  dispatch  to  your  excellency  submitting-  for  your  consider- 
ation three  additional  clauses  to  the  new  treaty.  To  this,  however,  your  excellency 
has  never  replied.  The  Chinese  minister  to  the  United  States  also  submitted  these 
three  clauses  in  a  dispatch  to  tlie  Department  of  State.  He,  too,  received  not  a  word 
in  reply.  The  new  treaty,  however,  was  rejected  and  a  new  statute  was  enacted  in 
place  of  it.  This  method  of  dealing  does  not  seem  to  us  to  agree  with  the  spirit  vrliich 
animates  the  treaties  of  our  two  couutries,  and  fails  to  accord  with  tlie  several  de- 
cades of  friendship  betvreea  us.  Since  the  euactiai?  of  this  new  law  Chinese  going 
to  and  from  the  United  States  have  all  met  with  interference.  His  excellency  Mr. 
Chang,  former  minister  to  the  United  States,  first  on  the  25  th  clay  of  the  twelfth  moon 
of  the  fourteenth  Kuang-hsii  (January  26,  1889),  later  on  the  26th  of  the  first  moon 
of  the  tifteentli  Kuaug-lisii  (February  22,  1889)，  wrote  to  the  former  Secretary  of  State 
on  this  subject.  In  reply  to  these  dispatches  he  received  an  answer  from  the  honorable 
Secretary,  in  which  lie  merely  intimated  that  as  the  President  was  about  to  go  out  of 
office  be  certainiy  would  not  ratify  any  legislation  enacted  in  violation  of  treaty. 
He  did  not  reply  to  any  of  the  other  important  matters  submitted  to  liiin. 

After  Mr.  Blame  had  entered  on  his  duties  as  Secretary  of  State  tlie  former  minis- 
ter, Mr.  Chang,  ou  the  10th  day  of  the  sixth  moon,  fifteenth  Kuang-lisii  (July  7, 1889), 
wrote  a  dispatch  making  urgent  inquiries  for  information,  and  demauding  that  the  law 
enacted  by  Congress  the  preceding  year,  prohibiting  Chinese  laborers  from  entering 
the  United  States,  be  repealed. 

These  communications  were  exceedingly  explicit  in  their  statemeut  of  the  case. 

In  reply,  however,  the  Department  merely  stated  that  haste  would  be  made  in  a 
careful  consideration  of  the  subject.  As  to  the  manlier  in  which,  tliis  consideration 
has  been  conducted,  uo  information  lias  as  yet  been  given.  This  yanieii  observes  that 
the  Chinese  minister,  in  his  three  dispatches  above  referred  to.  lias,  in  the  main,  sub- 
stantiated liis  position  by  quotation  from  the  successive  treaties  between  the  United 
States  and  China.  Now,  by  reference  to  the  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States, 
1881,  pp.  173,  185，  and  198;  aud  to  tlie  statutes  of  the  United  States,  March,  1843，  5th 
chapter,  p.  624;  and  to  the  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States  of  1870,  p.  332; 
aud  to  the  Congressional  Record,  1868,  19th  chapter,  pp.  8451,  8452,  8453  ；  aud  to  the 
message  of  President  Hayes,  March  1，  1879,  to  the  Fort y-tiftb.  Congress,  vetoing  a 
bill;  and  to  the  message  to  Congress  of  President  Arthur,  April  4,  1882 ― by  reference 
to  these  various  documents  kept  on  record  by  the  United  States  GoTernment,  refer- 
ring to  statutes  and  matters  with  which  your  excellency  is  well  acquainted,  it  may 
be  easily  ascertained  why  the  Department  of  State  persistently  refused  to  give  def- 
inite answers.  Sincerely  interested,  as  your  excellency  is,  in  the  relation  of  our 
countries,  you  probably  are  aware  that  the  law  uotv  in  operation,  contrary  to  treaty 
stipulations,  interferes  with  Chinese  subjects  in  their  efforts  to  gain  a  livelihood,  as 
well  as  violates  the  several  treaties  themselves.  Last  year  at  the  opening  of  Con- 
gress his  excellency  the  President,  in  liis  message  to  that  body,  stated  that  the 
failure  to  ratify  and  exchange  the  new  treaty  negotiated  between  China  and  the 
United  States,  and  the  legislation  of  the  last  session  of  Congress  consequent  thereto, 
had  left  some  questions  open,  to  the  deliberation  of  which  it  was  now  his  duty  to 
request  Congress  to  approacli  witli  justice  and  equity,  etc. 

This  yamen  has  not  heard  from  your  excellency  whether  or  not  during  these 
months  any  such  deliberatious  have  been  entered  iuto  by  the  Congress  of  your  coun- 
try. 


12 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


His  excellency  Mr.  Tsui,  our  present  minister,  lias  frequently  written  to  tlie  Depart- 
ment on  the  subject,  but  receives  no  replies.  We  request,  finally,  that  your  excel- 
lency will  clearly  indicate  to  us  what  article  of  the  treaty  it  is  that  your  honorable 
Congress  relied  on  in  enacting  the  new  law  of  last  year.  Should  statutes  be  enacted 
without  adherence  to  the  treaties,  then  the  Chinese  residents  in  the  United  States 
must,  in  time  to  come,  suffer  varied  and  repeated  hardships.  This  result  we  fear, 
can  not  be  avoided.  The  Chinese  liave  gone  to  America  because  repeated  treaties 
have  authorized  them  to  go  and  come  at  their  pleasure,  and  to  enjoy  there  the  advan- 
tages of  citizens  of  the  most  favored  nation.  For  this  reason  the  residents  on  the 
coasts  of  China  have  gone  to  the  United  Slates  in  large  numbers  to  gain  their  sub- 
sistence. There  they  have  accumulated  considerable  property.  Now  that  suddenly 
their  going  to  and.  fro  is  prohibited,  to  whose  charge  shall  be  given  their  homes  and 
property  iu  America?  The  new  law  enacted  by  Congress  is  totally  at  variance  with 
the  treaties,  and  we  consider  it  a  violation  of  the  spirit  wliicli  prompted  your  conn- 
try  in  its  repeated  requests  to  China  to  execute  treaties  with  it.  It  forms  an  entirely- 
new  episode  in  the  relations  of  the  two  countries,  and,  though  there  was  a  disagree- 
ment with.  France  in  1798,  the  instance  is  one  which  is  seldom  met  with  in.  the  history 
of  the  United  States  with  other  countries. 

Your  excellency  is  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  treaties  between  China  and  tlie 
United  States  ；  we  therefore  request  you  at  once  to  write  to  the  Department  of  State 
to  secure  the  repeal  of  the  laws  in  violation  thereof.  We  hope,  also,  to  receive  an 
answer  to  this  important  matter. 

A  necessary  commuuication,  etc. 


[Inclosure  2  in  No.  1123.— Translation^ 
The  Tsung-li  Yamen  to  Mr.  Deiiby. 

June  17，  1890. 

Your  Excellency  :  It  is  customary  to  speak  of  the  relations  between  China  and 
the  United  States  as  characterized  by  continuous  cordiality.  The  treaties  which 
China  has  on  various  occasions  entered  into  with  the  United  States  have  all  been 
an i mated  with  the  intention  to  protect  the  interests  of  American  citizens.  The  United 
States,  however,  because  of  discrimination  against  Chinese  laborers,  have  repeatedly 
ouacted  laws  in  violiition  of  treaty,  and  all  having  for  their  object  the  maltreatment 
ami  iiijuiy  of  Chinese  subjects.  We  have  lately  received  from  his  excellency  Mr. 
Tsui,  minister  to  the  United  States,  a  commuuication,  wherein  he  says  that  the  Lower 
House  of  the  United  States  Congress  lias  had  under  discussion  recently  the  enacting 
of  a  vexatious  law  requiring  the  euumeration  of  the  Chinese  in  the  United  States,  in 
California  ；  moreover,  a  statute  has  been  recently  enacted  driving  out  and  expelling 
the  Chinese  from  the  larger  cities.  On  reading  this,  very  great  was  our  indignation 
and  grief.  The  second  article  of  the  supplementary  treaty  between  China  and  the 
United  States  of  the  sixth  Kuang-hsu  (1880)  says  that  Chinese  merchants  "and  Chi- 
nese laborers  who  arc  now  in  the  United  States  shall  be  allowed  to  go  and  come  of 
their  own  free  will  and  accorded  all  the  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and  exerap- 
tiuns  which,  are  accorded  to  citizens  aud  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation." 
Article  III  says :  "If  Chinese  laborers  or  Chinese  of  any  other  class,  now  either  per- 
manently or  temporarily  residing  in.  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  meet  with  ill 
treatment  at  the  hands  of  any  other  persons,  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
will  exert  all  its  power  to  devise  measures  for  their  protection  and  secure  to  them 
the  same  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  aud  exemptions  as  may  be  enjoyed  by  the 
citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation,  and  to  which  they  are  entitled 
by  treaty."  The  vexatious  law  for  the  enumeration  of  the  Chinese  seems  to 
be  not  only  a  contradiction  of  the  u  favored-nation "  clause  iu  the  successive 
treaties  between  China  and  t\w  United  States,  but  a  violation  of  the  Consti- 
tution on  which  your  Government  is  built.  In  tho  law  for  the  driving  out 
and  expulsion  of  the  Chinese  and  tlie  limitation  of  their  residence  hereafter  to 
a  particular  locality  no  inquiry  has  been  made  as  to  whether  they  had  prop- 
erty or  not.  They  are  all  alike  to  be  forced  into  one  narrow  placo  aud  not  allowed 
the  usual  privileges  of  residence.  After  sixty  days  those  not  driven  out  sb;tll  be  or- 
dered to  ])rison.  We  do  not  know  whether  the  Chinese  now  residing  in  the  United 
Stat»\s  are  all  those  who  in  former  times  went  thither  under  tlie  treaty  wliich  your 
< vi'ni  m'  nt  en  !  I  i  fd  iii  \n  1 1  h  (  'h  i  n;i  in  oidcr  to  ;iul  lioii/c  t  hcii-  .U<)in,L;'.  Their  si  rcn^tli, 
however,  was  availed  ol*  and  tlioir  labor  used.  Aftorw;ii(ls,  us  hooh  as  the  railroad 
1i;k1  pi (； reed  tlirou^li  t<»  Cnliiornia,  and  wlien  buaiiicss  llourislicd,  the  virtues  of  the 
( 'hiiKise  wero  no  longer  reiii(，"il)er"(l，  and  thoy  worr,  re^;irded  as  euoniics.  At  fiiHthoa- 
tility  ； I toso,  t  lien  t  lioic  wa^lHjf riling  of  houses,  tlion  tlioro  wasoxpul.sion  of  (,'liiucse; 
now  they  aro  to  be  forced  to  live  in  one  lot  uliiy  and  bo  allowed  110  rosideuce  olso where. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


13 


It  seems  that  they  are  to  be  gathered  together  to  inflict  further  injuries  on  them. 
This  is  a  contradiction  of  those  words  of  the  treaty  which  say  they  may  "go  and  come 
of  their  own  free  will  aud  accord/*' while  the  proposed  imprisonment  after  sixty  days  is 
a  nullification  of  that  treaty  clause  whicli  speaks  of  enjoying  the  advantages  of  the  sub- 
jects of  the  "most  favored  nation."  Should  such  acts  as  these  originate  with  the  citi- 
zens or  subjects  of  another  country,  should  they  so  insult  and  ill  treat  the  Chinese  labor- 
ers, the  Government  of  your  honored  country  would  be  in  duty  bound  to  u  exert  all  its 
power  to  devise  measures  for  their  protection/'  and  thus  fulfill  its  treaty  obligation. 
Now,  however,  contrary  to  all  our  expectations,  these  oppressions  and  these  insults 
come  from  the  United  States,  whose  relations  with  us  it  is  customary  to  designate  as 
cordial.  We  are  humbly  of  opinion  that  in  the  law  of  nations  reciprocity  is  con- 
sidered most  important.  Suppose  that  China  should  conduct  herself  toward  Ameri- 
can citizens  in  a  similar  maimer,  we  ask  whether  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
would  not  reproach  China  with  a  violation  of  the  treaty  ？  And  would  your  excel- 
lency sit  still  and  make  no  inquiries  of  us?  Change  your  point  of  observation.  At 
this  time  China  can  not  refrain  from  expressing  her  feelings,  and  it  is  just  that  she 
should  do  so.  The  whole  truth  is  that  this  class  of  Chinese  laborers,  although  living 
beyond  the  outer  seas,  are  not  the  less  the  children  of  China,  and  she  is  unable  to  cast 
them  from  her  breast.  It  is  our  duty,  therefore,  to  communicate  with  your  excel- 
lency and  to  express  the  hope  that  you  will  write  to  the  Department  of  State  to  ab- 
rogate the  laws  requiring  enumeration  and  forced  restriction  of  residence.  We  hope 
for  an  early  reply.  We  further  wish  that  you  would  transmit  to  the  Department  of 
State  a  request  to  speedily  reply  to  the  dispatch  of  last  year  from  his  excellency 
Mr.  Tsui,  the  present  minister,  sent  duriug  the  second  intercalary  month,  and  that 
of  the  former  minister,  Mr.  Chang,  and  thus  show  some  concern  for  the  important 
matter  of  the  good  relations  of  our  countries. 
A  necessary  comniunication,  etc. 


[Inclosure  3  in  No.  1123.] 
Mr.  Denby  to  the  Tsung-li-yamen. 

No.  7.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  My  26,  1890. 

Your  Highness  and  Your  Excellencies  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the 
receipt  of  your  communication  of  June  16, 1890.  I  seize  the  earliest  opportunity  after 
my  return  to  Peking  to  reply  to  the  same. 

You  set  out  in  detail  tlio  dates  of  the  treaties  and  make  some  observations  on  their 
origin.  You  proceed  to  comment  on  the  act  of  Cougres  of  October,  1888，  relating  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  Chinese  laborers,  which  act  you  severely  criticise.  You  further 
state  that  I  sent  no  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  15th.  day  of  the  eighth  moon 
of  the  fourteenth  year  of  Kuang-lisii  (September  20，  1887).  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I 
acknowledged  the  receipt  of  your  communication.  I  forwarded  it  to  my  Govern ment. 
I  have  received  no  advices  from  my  Government  touching  the  three  suggestions  made. 
You  further  state  that  you  have  addressed,  through  your  minister  at  Washington,  the 
present  Secretary  of  State  and  his  predecessor  on  this  subject  and  are  without  a  reply. 
You  cite  various  docuuients  and  Presidential  messages.  You  then  make  some  com- 
ments on  the  alleged  injustice  of  tlie  act  of  Congress  of  which,  you  complain,  and  you 
request  that  I  take  up  this  discussion  with  you,  and  that  I  clearly  indicate  to  you 
what  article  in  the  treaty  it  is  that  Congress  "relies  on  in  enacting  the  new  law  of 
1888."  You  proceed  to  detail  the  alleged  hardships  to  which  Chinese  subjects  will 
be  subjected  by  the  operation  of  the  new  statute,  and  you  severely  criticise  the  said 
statute.  You  request  me,  in  conclusion,  to  write  the  Secretary  of  State  to  secure  the 
repeal  of  the  said  law. 

In  reply  to  tliis  comrauuication,  I  have  to  say  that  I  have  sent  to  the  Department 
of  State  a  translation  of  your  communication . 

I  think  that  under  the  circumstances  detailed  by  you  it  is  best  for  me  to  await  the 
instructions  of  my  Government  before  taking  up  the  discussion  of  the  matters  stated. 
I  must  therefore  beg  of  you  to  await  a  more  specific  reply  to  your  commimicatiou 
until  I  shall  liave  received  tlie  instruction  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State. 
I  avail,  eto. 

Charles  Denby. 


14 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


[Inclosure  4  in  No.  1123.] 

Mr.  Denby  to  the  Tsung-li-yamen. 

No.  8.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  July  26,  1890. 
Your  Highness  and  Your  Excellencies  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the 
receipt  of  the  comniuiiicatiou  of  your  highness  and  your  excellencies  of  June  17， 
1890. 

I  seize  the  earliest  opportunity  after  my  return  to  Peking  to  reply  to  it.  You 
therein  state  that  the  United  States  "have  repeatedly  enacted  laws  in  violation  of 
treaty,  and  all  having  for  their  object  the  maltreatment  and  injury  of  Chinese  sub- 
jects." Under  the  treaty  of  1880  it  is  competent  for  the  Government  of  China  to 
bring  the  attention  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  that  of  the  minister 
to  Cbina  to  the  consideration  of  any  legislative  measure  which  may  be  found  to  work 
hardships  upon  the  subjects  of  China. 

As  I  understand  this  provision,  it  is  applicable  to  laws  that  have  been  enacted  by- 
Congress  and  have  received  the  sanction  of  the  Executive,  or  been  passed  over  his 
veto  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution,  and  that  have  become  valid  and  are  in 
force.  A  complaint  made  in  the  general  addressed  to  newly  proposed  laws  which  are 
not  in  force  would  require  mucli  time  for  discussion,  and  such  time  might  be  uselessly 
expended.  You  state  that  you  have  been  informed  by  your  miaister  at  Washington 
that  the  Lower  House  of  Congress  lias  had  under  discussion  recently  the  enacting 
of  a  vexatious  law  requiring  the  enumeration  of  the  Chinese  in  the  United  States. 
You  have  probably  been  informed  by  your  minister  before  this  time  that  the  said 
bill  failed  in  the  Senate,  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  will  in  all  Imrnan  probability 
not  become  a  law.  It  is  unnecessarj7  to  waste  any  time  in  the  discussion  of  this 
measure. 

You  refer,  also,  to  the  ordinance  lately  passed  by  the  city  of  San  Francisco.  That 
city  passed  an  ordinance  by  whicli  the  residence  of  Chinese  subjects  Avas  restricted 
to  certain  designated  localities.  If  this  ordinance  be  antagonistic  to  the  treaties,  as 
your  highness  and  your  excellencies  claim,  tlien  it  will  be  set  aside  by  the  courts 
and  held  to  be  naught  and  void.  Under  our  system  of  Government  it  is  not  com- 
petent for  auy  State  or  city  to  enact  laws  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  any  existing 
treaties.  I  have  not  learned  that  the  Chinese  consul  or  the  Chinese  residents  of  San 
Francisco  are  much  alarmed  at  the  passage  of  the  ordinance  in  question.  Until  the 
courts  shall  have  decided  that  the  said  ordinance  is  legal  and  binding,  and  some  action 
that  is  prejudicial  to  the  Chinese  has  been  had  thereunder,  it  would  seem  to  be  un- 
neecssary  to  discuss  its  provisions. 

I  have  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  State  a  translation  of  your  commuiiication,  and  I 
am  sure  that  it  will  secure  the  attention  that  its  importance  warrants. 
I  avail,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


No.  3. 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine, 

Chinese  Legation, 
Washington,  October  1，  1890.  (Received  October  1.) 
Sir:  Under  date  of  March  20  last  I  was  impelled  by  an  urgent  sense 
of  duty  to  send  you  a  note  of  some  length,  citing  the  notes  which  my 
predecessor  lisul  {iddrosscd  to  the  late  Secretary  of  State  and  to  your- 
self respecting  the  status  of  our  treaty  relations  as  alViM'ted  by  the 
action  of  the  last  Congress  of  your  country,  and  giving  some  additional 
ic;isons  w  liy,  in  my  opinion,  it  was  th(k  ini])crative  duty  of  youi-  G overn- 
im'iit  to  Jui  nisli  an  early  aud  compreliensive  I'eply  to  the  several  notes 
of  this  legation. 

II  lias  lillc (！  nw  witli  wonder  that  neitlier  an  acknowledgment  of  its 
r<'<'<'ij»l  ihm'  a  reply  tlicrclo  lias  up  to  tliis  time  been  received.  Kuow- 
in.i;  how  ('； nclull y  :nid  com  l (M)iisly  you  observe  all  f  lie  requirements  of 
(lil)loinatic  iiitncoui  sc,  I  liavo  not  attrihiitcd  tliis  lio^lcct  to  any  per- 
s(/n;il  (-lioic*'  on  your  ]>art.  I  li:ive  persuaded  niysHf  iluit  your  silence 
lias  been  <mi forced  by  soiim'  c(nit  rolling  reasons  of  state  winch  liave,  iu 
your  ojtinion,  made  it  j)i udent  t h;it  you  should  still  del'er  lor  a  time  the 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


15 


answer  wliicli  my  Government  lias  for  many  months  pastbeen  very  anx- 
ious to  receive. 

I  would  contimie,  out  of  personal  regard  to  you,  to  exercise  patience 
on  the  subject  if  I  were  permitted  to  do  so.  But  I  am  sorry  to  say  tbat 
this  I  can  not  do.  Upon  receipt  of  a  copy  of  my  note  to  you  of  March 
26,  1890，  my  G(»vernnient,  so  fully  persuaded  of  the  justice  of  the  repre- 
sentations made  by  this  legation,  couimuuicated  witli  his  excellency 
Minister  Denby,  and  urged  Lim  to  present  to  his  Government  the  lively 
desire  of  the  Chinese  Government  for  an  early  reply  to  these  represen- 
tations, and  that  steps  be  taken  to  undo  the  wrongs  being  inflicted  on 
Chinese  subjects  as  a  result  of  the  act  of  October  1，  1888.  And  I  have 
been  instructed  by  the  Tsung-li  Yamen  to  likewise  again  ask  that  early- 
attention  be  given  to  the  cited  notes  of  this  legation.  Iu  addition  to  this 
instruction,  tlie  losses  and  injuries  being-  suffered  by  thousands  of  my 
countrymen,  on  account  of  the  rigorous  enforcement  of  the  exclusion 
law  of  1888，  impel  me  to  redouble  my  efforts  to  secure  some  redress  and 
restore  our  treaties  to  respect  aucl  observance. 

I  beg  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  to  regard  this,  my  present  note,  not  as  an 
act  of  embarrassment  to  you,  but  as  a  friendly  effort  on  my  part  to  restore 
and  reaffirm  the  former  cordial  relations  which  have  existed  between 
our  two  countries.  The  old  nation,  with  its  liimdreds  of  millions  of 
people,  on  the  other  side  of  the  ocean,  extends  its  hand  across  tlie  great 
waters  to  the  young  nation  in  front  of  it,  with  its  wonderful  develop- 
ment in  population  and  resources,  and  asks  for  a  continuance  of  friend- 
shij)  and  commercial  intercourse  upon  tlie  basis  of  treaty  rights  ami 
reciprocal  justice.  Our  sages  and  statesmen  forages  past  have  taught 
our  nation  principles  of  .justice  and  good  faitli,  wLich,  upon  establishing 
diplomatic  relations  with,  the  nations  of  the  western  world,  we  found  to 
agree  with  the  code  of  international 】aw  as  framed  by  the  writers  and 
statesmen  of  your  country j  and  having  learned,  through  the  disinter- 
ested friendship  wliicli  hitherto  bad  marked  tlie  conduct  of  your  Govern- 
ment in  its  relations  to  Chma?  to  regard  your  nation  as  a  model  in  the 
practice  which  should  control  govemroents  in  their  reciprocal  inter- 
course, we  accepted  its  code  of  international  law;  and  to  this  code  we 
appeal  in  the  settlement  of  the  difficulties  which  have  unhappily  arisen 
between  us,  and  which  it  is  tlie  anxious  desire  of  the  Imperial  Govern- 
ment to  have  adjusted  in  the  speediest  manner  possible.  In  the  in- 
terest, therefore,  of  our  past  friendship,  and  to  promote  and  cemeut 
more  firmly  our  good  relations,  I  again  cominunicate  to  you  the  respect- 
ful request  of  my  Government  that  the  cited  notes  of  this  legation  may 
have  your  early  attention,  and  that  I  may  be  favored  as  promptly  as 
possible  with  the  views  and  instructions  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States. 

I  improve  this  opportunity,  etc., 

Tsui  Kwo  Yin. 


No.  4. 

Mr.  Blaine  to  Mr.  Tsui, 

Department  op  State, 

Washington,  October  6,  1890. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  tlie  receipt  of  your  note  of  the 
1st  instant,  in  which  you  recur  to  the  subject  of  the  note  addressed  by 
you  to  the  Department  on  the  26th  of  March  last,  to  which  no  formal 
reply  has  been  made. 


16 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


T  am  happy  to  confirm  your  surmise  that  the  delay  in  making  such  a 
reply  has  not  been  due  to  any  neglect  or  lack  of  appreciation  of  the 
representations  you  have  made  or  of  the  importance  of  the  preserva- 
tion of  tlie  cordial  and  traditional  relations  of  friencislnp  whicli  have 
subsisted  between  our  two  governments.  The  questions  which  you 
present  have  been  and  are  now  the  subject  of  careful  consideration  on 
the  part  of  this  Government,  and  I  hope  to  be  able  at  an  early  day  to 
convey  to  you  the  views  of  the  President  in  an  ample  and  formal 
manner. 

In  coinmuuicating  to  you  this  expectation,  I  desire  to  assure  you  of 
my  appreciation  of  the  sentiments  of  amity  that  pervade  the  note  to 
which  I  now  have  the  honor  to  reply. 
Accept,  etc., 

James  G.  Blaine. 


No.  5. 

Mr.  Benby  to  Mr.  Blaine. 

No.  1181.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

PeMng,  October  22,  1890.    (Received  December  3.) 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  a  translation  of  a  commu- 
nication received  from  the  foreign  office,  together  with  a  copy  of  my 
answer  thereto.  The  purport  of  tlii  s  commuiiieation  is  a  reiterated  com- 
plaint that  you  have  failed  to  send  a  reply  to  the  representations  made 
to  you  by  the  Chinese  minister  at  Washington,  touching  the  repeal  of 
the  Chinese  exclusion  act  of  October,  1888. 

The  foreign  office  again  appeals  to  me  to  address  you  on  the  subject 
and  to  ascertain  finally  what  action  will  be  taken  in  the  premises  and 
send  them  a  specific  reply.  In  my  answer  I  have  undertaken^  to  ex- 
plain that  Congress  alone,  under^ur  form  of  government,  has  the  power 
of  legislation,  and  that  you  could  not  in  advance  determine  what  its 
action  might  be.  The  communication  alluded  to  by  the  foreign  office 
will  be  found  in  my  dispatcli  No.  1123  of  July  25,  1890.  Without  spe- 
cific instructions  from  you,  I  do  not  feel  myself  authorized,  nor  do  I 
deem  it  prudent  for  】ue，  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  with  the  yamen 
either  upon  the  merits  of  the  "  Scott  act"  or  of  the  mode  of  reconcil- 
ing China  to  its  results  and  effects. 
I  liave7  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


[Inclo8uro  1  in  No.  1181— Translation.] 
The  Tsung-U  Yamen  to  Mr.  Denby. 

Informal.]  Peking,  October  19, 1S90. 

Yoi:k  Excellency:  Upon  the  16th  of  June,  1890，  the  yam6n  bad  the  honor  to  in- 
form your  excellency  that  iu  the  matter  of  the  now  restriction  act,  an  act  abrogat- 
iii '乂.  cxiHl in^  treaties,  repeated  comirmnicatioiis  were  sont  to  the  Chinese  minister  at 
\\  .ishin^loii,  refpicst iii^-  him  to  ask  that  it  be  rejected  or  repealed,  but  tlie  Iiouot- 
al)]c  Sccictaiy  ol'  S title  lias  failed  to  send  a  reply  to  tlie  representation  made  to  him, 
;ui<l  your  ):xc,cl](Micy  \v;is  1  hcrcforo  requested  in  the  y anion's  coinninnication  to  ad- 
drrss  Mr.  I >l:iiiu'  i'c<|iics1  in^        r<']"':i】 inp  or  rejection  of  this  vexatious  act. 

I  j)oti  the  26t}i  of  .hily,  181K).  your  excel lcncy  replied  to  the  effect  that  you  had 
traiismitted  a  t^msl;it  ion  of  tlie  yaiin'  ii'H  coiiiiiiunication  to  the  honorable  Secretary 
oi  m  ;i  t<-  lor  lii.s  jtfi  usal,  hut  it  -would  be  uecessary  to  wait  a  reply  from  the  Depart- 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


17 


ment  of  State  before  sending  a  specific  i*>ply.  etc.  Now,  the  ministers  would  observe 
that  this  matter  has  heen  pending  for  over  four  inoutlis,  aud  if  the  honorable  Secretary 
of  State  has  at  heart  the  friend]y  relations  of  the  two  countries,  lie  certainly  should 
not  permit  or  be  willing  that  this  matter  should  be  delayed,  se«fc  aside,  and  take  no 
notice  of  it.  The  ministers  would  beg  your  excellency  to  again  address  the  honor- 
able Secretary  of  State,  and  ascertain  finally  what  action  will  be  taken  in  tlie  prem- 
ises and  send  them  a  specific  reply  and  oblige. 
Cards  with  compliments,  etc. 


[Inclosure  2  in  No.  1181.】 
Mr.  Denby  to  the  Tsung-U  YamSn, 

Informal.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  October  22,  1890. 

Your  Excellencies  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  tlie  receipt  of  the  coinmimi- 
cation  of  your  excellencies  of  the  19th  instant,  wherein  you  state  that  repeated  com- 
niunicatious  had  been  sent  to  the  Chinese  minister  in  Washington,  requesting-  liiiu  to 
ask  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  State  that  the  Chiuese  exclusion  act  of  October,  1888,  be 
rejected  or  repealed.  Your  excellencies  state  tliat  to  these  requests  the  Secretary  of 
State  has  failed  to  send  a  reply.  Your  excellencies  further  state  that  you  had  req  nested 
me  to  address  the  lionorable  Secretary  of  State  on  the  subject,  aud  that  I  informed 
your  excellencies  on  tlie  26th  of  July  lust  that  I  had  transmitted  a  translation  of  the 
yamen's  communications  to  tlie  lionorable  Secretary  of  State,  and  that  I  awaited  liis 
instructions.  I  have  now  to  state  that  I  have  received  no  reply  from  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  State  on  this  subject.  Your  excellencies  will  permit  ine,  however,  to  re- 
mind you  that  under  our  form  of  govei'nmeut  the  making  of  laws,  as  well  as  the  re- 
pealing or  altering  of  laws  already  enacted,  is  intrusted  to  the  two  Houses  of  Congress. 
The  President  lias  the  power  of  vetoing  any  act  of  Congress,  but  his  veto  may  be  over- 
ridden by  a  two-tliirds  vote  of  tlio  liicinbers  of  the  two  Houses.  It  is  not  within  the 
power  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  reject  or  repeal  any  law.  Your  excellencies  ask 
me  "to  again  address  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State,  aud  ascertain  finally  what 
action  will  be  taken  in  the  premises,  and  send  them  (you)  a  specific  reply." 

From  my  statement  above  made  of  the  power  of  the  lionorable  Secretary  of  State, 
it  is  plain  that  it  will  l>e  impossible  for  hi  in  to  state  in  advance  what,  the  action  of 
Congress  may  be  on  any  subject.  I  will  take  great  pleasure  iucominuuicating  to  the 
lionorable  Secretary  of  State  a  translation  of  your  present  communication.  In  this 
connection  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellencies  that  the  ordinance  of  tlie 
city  of  San  Francisco  which  purported  to  exclude  the  Chinese  residents  oi"  that  city 
from  a  certain  portion  of  the  city,  and  of  which  you  complained  to  me  ki  your  com- 
ninnicatioii  to  me  of  June  17  last,  has  been  decided  by  the  United  States  courts  to  be 
null  and  void  and  of  no  effect. 

In  my  communication  to  you  of  July  26  last,  I  plainly  intimated  that  this  result 
would  i'ollow  an  appeal  to  the  courts. " 
I  have,  etc., 

Chaeles  Denby. 


No.  6. 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine, 

Chinese  Legation, 
Washington,  December  4,  1890.    (Keceived  December  5.) 
Sir  :  From  the  several  notes  which  have  been  addressed  to  your 
Department  by  this  legation  since  the  passage  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  of  \he  exclusion  act  of  October  1，  1888,  it  is  known  to 
you  that  my  Government  lias  earnestly  desired  that  that  honorable 
body  should  undo  that  act  of  hardship  and  treaty  abrogation.  I 
watched  with  interest  the  proceedings  of  the  last  session,  and  at  its 
close  it  became 】ny  unpleasant  duty  to  inform  my  Government  that  it 
had  adjourned  without  taking  auy  action  looking  to  tlie  repeal  or  modi- 
fication of  the  act  of  1888. 
I  am  now  in  receipt  of  instructions  from  tlie  Imperial  Goveruineut 
S.  Ex.  54 —— 2 


18 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


directing  me  to  convey  to  you  the  disappointment  it  lias  experienced  at 
the  iutelligence  connnunicated  by  me,  and  to  express  to  you  the  hope 
that  during  the  session  which  convened  ou  the  1st  instant  Congress 
may  take  such  action  as  will  assure  tlie  Imperial  Government  of  the 
desire  of  that  of  tlie  United  States  to  maintaiu  in  fall  force  and  vigor 
the  treaties  entered  into  between  the  two  nations,  and  thus  renew  and 
streugthen  the  friendly  relations  which  have  so  long  existed. 

I  hope  that  you  will  not  interi>ret  this  note  into  any  manifestation 
of  impatience  at  the  noni  eceipt  of  the  i'q)ly  which  was  promised  in 
your  note  to  ine  of  October  6  last.  You  will，  I  am  quite  sure,  under- 
stand the  natural  do  sire  of  my  Government  (Nvliicli  makes  it  my  duty  at 
tli is  time  to  again  address  you)  to  relieve  the  many  thousands  of  my 
coiiutryuieii  from  tlie  sad  situation  in  which  tliey  have  been  placed  by 
the  passage  of  tlie  law  cited.  The  records  of  the  custom-house  at  San 
Francisco  alone  show  that  over  20,000  Chinese  subjects  who  had  left 
their  temporary  homes  and  business  in  the  United  States,  bearing 
w i tli  tliem,  under  the  seal  of  the  United  States,  certificates  of  tlieir 
rig] it  to  return,  were,  in  violation  of  these  certificates  and  of  solenm 
treaty  guaranties,  absolutely  and  without  notice  excluded  from 
the  IJnited  States  by  that  law  enforced,  that  those  Chinese  who  were 
on  the  higli  seas  at  the  time  it  was  passed  were  forbidden  to  land 
at  San  Francisco  and  were  driven  back  to  Gbina.  The  great  pecu- 
niary loss  which  these  Chinese  subjects  have  sustained  on  account 
of  being  excluded  from  tlieir  temporary  homes  and  business  in  this 
country  has  been  regarded  by  my  Government  as  a  serious  hardship. 
Besides  these,  tlie  law  lias  been  very  oppressive  and  unjust  in  its 
effects  upon  a  still  greater  number  of  Chinese  subjects.  Under  tlie 
provisions  of  tlie  treaty  of  1880,  the  Chinese  laborers  then  in  the  United 
States  were  guarantied  the  right  "to  go  and  come  of  tbeir  own  free 
will  and  accord,"  but  the  act  of  1888  nullifies  this  stipulation,  and  the 
Chinese  laborers  are  therefore  denied  the  privilege  of  a  visit  to  their 
native  land,  or  it  must,  be  made  at  tlie  sacrilice  of  all  tlieir  business 
interests  in  this  country. 

In  view  of  the  injustice  and  loss  wliicli  has  been  and  still  is  being 
inflicted  by  tlie  operations  of  this  law,  my  Government  lias  felt  it  nec- 
essary that  I  should  again  make  kuown  to  you  its  earnest  desire  that 
soinetliiug  should  be  doue  to  alleviate  the  injuries  being  suH'ered  on  ac- 
count of  its  passage. 

I  nved  hardly  add  that  this  representation  is  not  】na(le  out  of  any 
disposition  to  aggravate  the  present  unsatisfactory  condition  of  our 
relations,  but  with  the  earnest  hope  that  it  may  lead  to  some  settle- 
ment which  will  cement  our  old  friendship  aud  create  new  relations  of 
harmony  and  freer  commercial  intercourse. 
I  improve  the  opportunity,  etc., 

Tsui  Kwo  Yin. 


No.  7.  • 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  BJaine. 

Oiiinf^e  Legation, 
Washi))f/t(n(,  March  2'、  l^'JLK    ( Received  March  23.) 
Sin  ：  T  linvo  to  write  to  you  now  ni,s])cctin,u'  ； i  matter  about  whieli  it 
is  not  plcMsimt  tor  me  t<»  I nml)lo,  \oii.  inid  wliicli  L  would  not  tlo  if  my 
duty  lo  my  Gu\ ei  iinieiit  did  not  conipcl  me. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


19 


As  you  know  very  well,  the  minister  who  represented  the  Imperial 
Chinese  Government  before  me  sent  you  and  Secretary  Bayard  long 
notes  about  the  violation  of  the  treaties  by  the  American  Congress, 
and,  no  replies  having  been  sent,  I  also,  instructed  to  do  so  by  my 
Government,  have  written  you  more  than  once  on  the  subject.  It  has 
made  me  very  sorry  to  have  been  the  minister  of  uiy  country  in  Wash- 
ington so  long  without  being  able  to  obtain  a.  reply  to  these  notes  about 
a  matter  in  which  China  is  so  much  interested. 

You  will  not  forget  that  I  liave  frequently  taken  occasion  in  uiy  visits 
to  you  at  the  Department  to  speak  to  you  about  tins  subject,  and  that 
工 have  been  promised  by  you  a  reply.  I  have  written  of  this  promise 
to  my  Grovermnent,  and  you  will  not  be  surprised  when  I  say  that  it 
can  not  understand  why  the  promised  reply  on  so  important  a  subject 
is  not  sent.  Before  my  】ate  visit  to  Cuba  I  spoke  to  you  about  it，  and 
again  when  I  called  on  you  at  the  Department  after  ray  return,  and  on 
both  occasions  you  assured  uie  that  an  answer  should  be  sent  very 
soon. 

I  would  not  trouble  you  now,  but  I  have  very  lately  received  urgent 
inquiries  from  the  tsung-li  yartieii  and  from  the  Viceroy  Li  Hung 
Chang,  instructing  me  to  again  press  for  an  answer  to  those  notes  of 
the  legation.  I  beg,  therefore,  that  you  will  do  me  the  favor  to  send  me 
a  note  about  this  matter  very  soon. 

I  am  more  anxious  than  ever  to  know  what  you  tliink  about  this  mat- 
ter, because  I  liear  that  more  bills  are  proposed  in  tbe  American  Con- 
gress wbicli,  if  they  are  favorably  voted,  will  make  still  farther  viola- 
tions of  the  treaties.  Thus  it  seems  to  me  Unit  while  tlie  Congress  is 
so  anxious  to  enact  laws  against  the  Chinese,  it  does  not  consider  how 
much  it  disregards  the  observation  of  the  treaty  stipulations 5  but  this 
is  not  what  my  Government  expects  of  the  United  States  Government. 
Accept,  etc., 

-  Tsui  Kwo  Yin. 


No.  8. 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine. 

Chinese  Legation, 
Washington^  April  12,  1892.    (Keceivecl  April  12.J 

Sie  :  In  yonr  absence  from  the  Department  on  yesterday  I  called 
upon  Mr.  Wharton,  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  and  communi- 
cated to  him  the  substance  of  a  telegram  which  I  received  on  the  day 
before  from  the  tsung-li  yamen,  comrnuuieating  that  it  had  received 
information  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  by  the  House  of  liepreseutatives  of 
the  United  States  prohibiting  the  future  coming  of  Chinese  to  the 
United  States,  and  I  was  directed  to  bring  the  matter  to  your  atten- 
tion, in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  said  bill  was  understood  by  the  tsung-li 
yamen  to  be  in  violation  of  our  treaty  stipulations. 

In  answer  to  my  inquiry  as  to  what  course  I  should  adopt  in  view  of 
this  instruction,  Mr.  Wharton  stated  that  if  I  should  send  a  note  to  the 
Department  settiilg  forth  the  views  of  my  Goveruinent  the  Department 
would  take  pleasure  in  transmitting'  a  copy  of  it  to  the  Committee  ou 
Foreign  Relations  of  tbe  Senate,  which  I  understood  from  him  liad  the 
bill  now  under  its  consideration.  I  beg,  tlierefore,  to  direct  your  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  said  bill  violates  every  single  one  of  the 
articles  of  the  treaty  which  was  neg  otiated  in  1880  by  the  Commission - 
S.  Ex.  2 —— 32 


20 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


ers  wlio  were  sent  out  from  your  Government  to  China  for  the  express 
purpose  of  agreeing  with  tlie  Chinese  Government  upon  such  a  treaty 
as  the  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States  wanted,  by  which 
to  regulate  the  immigration  of  the  people  of  China  to  the  United  States. 
The  record  of  the  liegotiatioiKs  which  took  place  in  1 880  will  show  that 
the  American  Commissioners  laid  before  the  Oliiiiese  Government  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  which  tliey  desired  aod  which  they  said  would  prove 
satisfactory  to  their  people.  In  answer  to  their  request  tlie  Chinese 
Government  made  that  treaty,  and  have  since  that  time  sought  in  all 
ways  within  its  power  to  have  this  and  all  other  treaty  stipulations  be- 
tween the  two  countries  faithfully  executed  so  far  as  the  Chinese  Gov- 
ernment is  concerned.  My  Government  can  not,  therefore,  understand 
why  a  bill  should  now  be  introduced  into  Congress  which  violates  out- 
right all  the  provisions  of  that  treaty,  which  was  raade  at  the  express 
request  of  the  United  States. 

The  bill  about  which  1  now  write  you  not  only  violates  Article  1  of 
treaty  of  1880  iu  making-  absolute  the  prohibition  of  the  coining"  of  Chi- 
nese laborers  to  the  United  States,  but  contains  legislation  which  is  in 
violation  of  the  last  clause  of  the  ai  ticle,  which  says  that  the  legislation 
shall  not  be  of  such  a  character  as  to  subject  the  laborers  to  personal 
maltreatment  or  abuse. 

It  violates  Article  2  in  that  it  prohibits  the  coming  to  the  United 
States  of  teachers,  students,  mei cluiuts.  or  Chinese  subjects  from  curi- 
osity or  travel,  as  it  also  excludes  all  their  body  and  household  serv- 
ants. The  bill  further  prohibits  the  return  of  Chinese  laborers  who 
are  now  in  the  United  States,  and  who，  according'  to  tlie  treaty,  were 
to  be  "allowed  to  go  and  come  of  their  own  free  will  and  accord." 

It  violates  Article  3  in  that  it  does  not  grant  to  Chinese  subjects  in 
the  United  States  "the  same  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and  exemp- 
tions" as  are  "enjoyed  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  】nost  favored 
nation,  and  to  which  they  are  entitled  by  treaty.'1  The  bill,  besides 
subjecting  the  Chinese  in  the  United  States  to  various  annoyances  and 
penalties,  also  requires  that  they  shall  take  out  a  certificate  of  resi- 
dence, whicli  certificate  is  required  to  contain  a  pliotograpliic  copy  of 
the  applicant,  together  with  other  restrictions  and  penalties,  whicb,  as 
I  am  informed,  is  not  required  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  any  other 
foreign  country  now  living  in  the  United  States. 

I  beg  that  you  will,  Mr.  Secretary,  exert  your  influence  with  the  com- 
mittee before  wliom  I  learn  from  Mr.  Wharton  the  bill  is  now  being 
considered,  believing  that  you  have  the  same  interest  and  desire  as  the 
Chinese  Govenmient  to  preserve  inviolate  the  solemn  treaty  stipula- 
tions Avhicli  have  been  made  between  the  two  governments. 

I  send  to  you,  with  this  note,  an  original  statement  signed  by  Mr. 
Phelps,  the  collector  of  customs  of  San  Francisco,  and  also  a,  copy  of 
11"'  same,  whicli  shows  that  since  the  restriction  act  of  1882  went  into 
effect  the  number  of  departures  of  Chinese1  from  the  port  of  Ban  Fran- 
cisco  have  exceeded  tlie  arrivals  by  32,000  j)orsoiis,  uiiicli  statement 
would  seem  to  indicate  there  is  no  occasion  for  alarm  as  to  the  increase 
of  ( 'liiix'sc  i  mini  ^ration  into  the  United  Sl;it(\s.  A  iter  you  Lave  com- 
]>;>rc(l  the  original  stnt ciiicnt  w  itli  tlie  copy,  in  order  to  be  satisfied  of 
its  authenticity,  I  ask  that  you  will  returu  tlie  original  to  nie. 
Accept^  sir,  etc., 

Tsui  Kwo  Yin, 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


21 


Custom-House,  Collector's  Office, 

San  Francisco,  Cal.,  March  SO,  1892. 


Arrival  a  and  departures  of  Chinese  at  the  port  of  San  Francisco  from  date  of  the  restrie- 
t'ton  acf,  August  5,  1882,  to  December  31,  1891. 


Arrivals. 

Departures. 

From  August  5，  1882,  to  December  31— 

18,  703 
6,  7]  4 
11,572 
17.  981 
1.017 
2,  725 
2, 123 

1-1 卜 OS  —  «C  C3 卜 

1886  

1891  

CO, 835 

92，  925 

Excess  of  departures  I  32,  090 


The  above  is  a  correct  statement,  taken  from  the  records  of  this  custom-house. 

T.  G.  Phelps,  Collector. 


No.  9. 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine. 

Chinese  Legation, 
Washington,  April  21,  1892.    (Received  April  21.) 
Sm :  On  the  12tli  instant  I  had  the  honor,  under  the  instructions  of 
the  Imperial  Government  at  Peking,  to  submit  to  you  its  views  respect- 
、 ing  the  legislation  now  pending  in  the  Con<*T^ss  of  the  United  States 
as  to  the  conuiig  of  Chinese  to  the  United  States.    Since  the  date  ot 
that  note  I  have  received  a  second  cablegram  from  the  Tsung-li  Yamen, 
in  wliicli  I  am  instructed  by  it  to  urge  upon  you  the  importance  of  both 
Governments  of  the  preservation  of  our  existing  treaties,  which  the 
pending'  legislation  threatens  to  destroy.    I  can  only  repeat  my  earnest 
desire  that  you  will  do  whatever  you  can  to  prevent  auy  violation  of 
these  treaties  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 
Accept,  sir,  etc., 

Tsui  Kwo  Yin. 


]STo.  10. 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Blaine. 

Chinese  Legation, 
Washington,  May  5,  1892.  (Received  May  5.) 
Sir  :  I  learn  from  the  reports  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress  that 
the  bill  concerning  the  Chinese,  about  which  I  have  written  and  talked 
with  you,  has  finally  been  passed  by  that  high  body,  and  I 讓 told  that 
it  only  remains  for  it  to  secure  the  name  of  bis  excellency  the  Presi- 
dent to  become  a  law  of  this  couotr/.  I  have  already  protested  to  you 
against  it  as  a  v  olation  of  tlie  treaty  of  1880，  and  I  now  want  to  make 
use  of  the  privilege  which  is  secured  to  me  by  Article  4  of  that  treaty, 
to  bring  th(3  matter  to  your  notice  iu  the  most  urgent  manner  that  I 


22 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


can,  and  ask  you  to  lay  what  I  have  to  say  before  his  excellency  the 
President  before  he  shall  act  upon  the  bil】  which  has  just  passed  the 
honorable  Congress. 

In  the  notes  which  my  predecessor  and  I  have  some  time  ago  sent  to 
your  Department  we  have  shown  how  the  Scott  bill,  passed  by  the 
Congress  of  1888,  was  a  clear  violation  of  the  treaty  of  1880.  Your  own 
silence  on  the  subject  must  be  understood  to  be  a  recogDition  that  what 
we  have  charged  is  true.  In  fact,  your  own  Supreme  Court  has  ad- 
mitted that.  Now,  the  Congress,  in  the  bill  which  has  just  been  voted, 
has  a  provision  that  this  bad  law  shall  be  kept  in  force. 

But  this  bill  does  even  worse  injury  than  tlie  Scott  law.  In  its  sec- 
tion 5  it  denies  to  Chinese  the  riglit  of  bail  iu  habeas  corpus  suits. 
One  of  the  honorable  Senators,  wlio,  I  have  heard,  is  a  tine  lawyer,  stated 
in  the  Senate  that  this  section  "was  inconsistent  with  one  of  the  funda- 
mental principals  of  justice  that  exists  in  China,  America,  and  every- 
where where  God  reigns."  You  must  agree  with  me,  Mr.  Secretary, 
that  it  violates  sections  2  and  3  of  the  treaty  of  1880. 

Section  6  of  the  bill  makes  it  ne<iessary  for  all  Chinese  laborers  to  get 
a  certificate  from  tlie  collector  of  internal  revenue  to  entitle  him  to  re- 
main in  the  country.  The  collector  may  give  it  to  him  if  he  wants  to, 
and  if  he  does  not  want  to  the  Chinese  must  leave  the  country,  as  there 
is  no  method  provided  to  compel  the  collector  to  do  justice  to  the  Chinese 
laborer.  If  a  Chinese  is  arrested  for  not  having  a  certificate  he  must 
prove  by  a  white  man  that  he  is  entitled  to  be  in  the  country,  and  as 
the  first  law  prohibiting  Chinese  laborers  coming  to  the  country  was 
passed  just  ten  years  ago,  the  laborer  must  find  a  white  man  who  knew 
him  on  or  before  1882.  The  laborer  wlio  is  now  in  WashiDgton  City,  or 
Texas,  most  likely  lived  in  California  in  1882.  He  must  go  to  Califor- 
nia and  see  if  lie  can  find  a  white  man  who  knew  hini  ten  years  ago, 
and  return  with  the  evidence  to  the  place  where  he  now  lives.  One  of  tlie 
Senators  from  Texas  said  that  Chinese  in  bis  State  would  have  to  travel 
500  miles  to  find  a  collector  to  give  the  certificate,  and  lie  would  have 
to  take  a  white  witness  with  liiin.  In  pointing  out  some  of  these  diffi- 
culties, the  Senator  from  Oounecticut  said  that  the  law  practically 
meant  that  all  the  Chinese  laborers  now  in  the  United  States  would 
have  to  depart  within  a  year  and  leave  their  possessions  and  their 
property,  and  in  some  instances  their  families.  And  the  honorable 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Aifairs  said  the  same  thing,  and 
he  compared  this  provision  of  the  law  to  some  of  the  regulations  of  the 
old  slavery  times  before  the  great  war  which  you  fought  to  get  rid  of 
slavery  ；  and  he  said,  also,  that  it  was  precisely  like  the  ticket  ot-leave 
practice  of  the  Australian  convicts. 

The  same  section  permits  a  Chinese  to  be  arrested  without  any  war- 
rant or  authority,  and  then  he  is  required  to  prove  his  innocence  before 
the  court.  I  do  not  claim  much  knowledge  of  Americaii  law,  but  I  had 
su])])ose(]  that  in  all  good  and  just  goveinnientns  a  man  bad  to  be  proved 
guilty  before  he  could  be  punished.  And  I  see  that  in  tlie  discussion 
of  tliis  bill  Senators  who  have  been  educated  as  lawyers,  and  under- 
stood youi'  】；iws,  have  declared  that  such  a  provision  is  contrary  to  all 
your  law  principles  and  practice  and  deuoimced  it  us  u unquestionably 
； in  net  oi  l»;iibarous  legislation.'' 

Tli"s<-  ； u<'  s(hiic  '"•  the  r)l)j('ctionable  provisions  ol'  tliis  bill  wliicli  is 
now  Ix'lorc  liis  ('xccllcncy  tiic,  PicsidcMit.  I  could  point  out  others,  as 
tln'y  bavc  been  iiiciitioiicd  hy  lionorablc  Sciintors,  hut  it  is  a  waste  of 
your  time  lor  m('  to  do  so,  ； is  both  the  I'icsidcnt  and  you  arc  so  niucli 
b<'U (； r  JiilornitMl  than  I  ； mi  ； is  to  the  l;iw  principles  which  govern  your 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


23 


country,  and  which  liave  made  it  one  of  the  most  enlightened  nations 
of  the  world.  It  only  remains  for  me  to  direct  your  attention  to  the 
stipulations  of  articles  2  and  3  of  the  treaty  of  1880,  and  to  ask  you 
and  his  excellency  the  President  to  see  how  plainly  section  6  of  the  bill 
now  before  the  P resident  violates  those  stipulations. 

In  the  unanswered  note  of  iny  predecessor  to  your  Department,  dated 
January  26,  188!),  the  circumstances  under  which  the  treaty  of  1880 
was  negotiated  are  told,  and  I  beg  you  to  have  the  President  read  that 
note.  (See  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  41,  Fifty- lirst  Congress,  first  session,  p.  5.) 
This  action  of  my  Government  in  making  the  treaty  of  18  0  at  the  par- 
ticular request  of  your  Government,  as  well  as  its  conduct  at  other 
times,  led  one  of  your  predecessors,  Mr.  Evtirts,  to  say  in  the  Seuate 
that  China  has  always  made  whatever  treaty  stipulations  and  changes 
tbe  American  Government  ever  asked,  and  had  always  been  most  con- 
ciliatory in  its  negotiations.  Under  such  a  state  of  relations  I  cau  not 
understand  why  the  honorable  Congress  should  be  so  hasty  to  pass 
laws  which  violate  the  very  treaty  which  your  Government  asked  China 
to  niiike.  aud  I  can  not  believe  that  the  enlightened  Chief  Magistrate  of 
this  great  country  will  join  with  the  Congress  in  such  treaty  violation 
by  approving  this  bill.  Eelying  upon  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  to  use  your 
powerful  influence  to  prevent  such  a  sad  event,  I  improve  this  occasion 
to  assure  you  of  my  highest  consideration. 

Tsui  Kwo  Yin. 


No.  11. 

Mr.  Benby  to  Mr,  Blaine. 

No.  1542.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  June  17,  1892.    (Received  July  23.) 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  the  translation  of  a  communication 
received  from  the  foreign  office  the  13th  instant,  relating  to  the 
Chinese  exclusion  legislation  of  Congress,  and  a  copy  of  my  reply 
thereto. 

As  requested,  I  wiied  you  the  17th  instant  as  follows  : 

Foreign  office  desires  to  know  if  President  approved  act  continuing  restriction  of 
Chinese  ten  years. 

The  communication  of  the  foreign  office  evidently  refers  primarily  to 
the  Geary  bill.  I  learn  from  the  newspapers  that  a  conference  com- 
mittee of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  substituted  a  Senate  bill  for  the 
Geary  bill,  but  whether  this  substitute  has  become  a  law  I  do  not 
know. 

I  request  that  a  copy  of  all  recent  acts  affecting  the  question  of 
Chinese  immigration  be  sent  to  me. 
I  have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


[Inclosure  1  in  No.  1542.] 

The  Tsung  li-Yamen  to  Mr.  Denby .  • 

Peking,  June  13,  1892. 

Upon  the  10th  June,  instant,  the  prince  and  ministers  had  the  honor  to  receive 
from  liis  excellency.  Tsui.  Chinese  minister  at  Washington,  a  copy  of  a  restriction 
act  against  Chinese,  presented  in  tlic  House  of  Rei3ieseutatives  on  (the  8tli  day,  third 


24 


CHIXESE  IMMIGRATION. 


】noon，  present  year  of  Kuaug  Hsii)  the  4tli  of  April,  1892,  consisting  of  fourteen  ar- 
ticles, the  provisions  of  wliich  are  extreme  in  their  rigor  and  very  injurious  to  the 
good  narae  of  the  United  States  Government. 

The  provisions  of  Article  I  t  ； ire  to  e fleet  that  if  the  provisions  of  existing  treaties 
between  China  and  the  United  States  are  in  the  least  at  variance  with  the  terms  of 
the  bill,  they  are  to  be  entirely  abrogated.  The  yainen  can  not  but  regard  the  bill 
in  a  stranue  and  frightful  light. 

Friend] y  relations  have  existed  between  China  and  the  United  States  for  several 
tens  of  years,  but  the  action  now  taken  by  the  representatives  of  Congress  in  the 
matter  of  the  restriction  of  Chinese  laborers  evinces  a  desire  to  destroy  and  set  aside 
the  provisions  of  the  treaties  that  have  existed  during  these  years. 

In  the  Senate  a  bill  has  been  discussed  providing  for  the  coutinuance  of  the  act  of 
1888  for  a  period  of  ten  years.  These  bills  have  been  published  aud  are  universally 
known  far  and  near. 

The  prince  and  ministers  do  not  know  whether  the  President,  in  perusing  these 
"bills,  which  are  in  violation  of  and  abrogate  the  treaties,  will  approve  of  them  or 
not.  If  the  treaties  of  friendship  of  several  tens  of  years'  standing  are  to  be  abro- 
gated instantly,  then  such  action  would  be  decidedly  at  variance  with  the  original 
intent  and  purpose  Of  the  United  States  Government  when  it  negotiated  the  treaties 
with  China. 

The  treaties  between  the  United  States  and  China  all  originated  at  tlie  instance 
of  the  former  Government.  The  yamen  two  years  ago  argued  and  discussed  the 
question  of  the  restriction  of  Chinese  laborers,  and  clearly  and  minutely  set  forth 
the  views  entertained,  in  a  communication  addressed  to  the  United  States  minister. 

The  prince  and  ministers  have  the  lion  or  to  now  request  his  excellency  the  minis- 
ter of  the  United  States  to  be  good  enough  to  dispatch  a  telegram  inquiring  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  whether  the  bill  discussed  in  Congress,  in  violation  of  treaty, 
continuing  the  restriction  of  Chinese  for  a  further  period  of  ten  years,  has  received 
the  approval  aud  signature  of  the  President  or  not,  and  to  send  a  reply  at  an  early 
date,  and  oblige. 

A  necessary  communication  addressed  to  his  excellency  Charles  Denby,  etc. 


[Inclosure  2  in  No.  1542.] 

Mr.  Deribij  to  the  Tsung-li  Yamen. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  June  17,  1892. 
Your  Highness  and  Your  Excellencies  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge 
the  receipt  of  the  communication  of  your  highness  and  your  excellencies  of  the  13th 
instant. 

Your  higneas  and  your  excellencies  request  me  to  wire  to  the  honorable  Secre- 
tary of  State  of  the  United  States,  to  ascertain  whether  his  excellency  the  President 
has  approved  of  "  the  bill  discussed  in  Congress  *  *  *  continuing  the  restriction 
of  Chinese  for  a  further  period  of  ten  years." 

I  have,  as  requested,  sent  a  telegrani  to  that  effect  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of 
State,  and  will  transmit  the  substance  of  the  answer  thereto  to  your  highness  and 
your  excellencies  when  it  is  received. 
I  have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


No.  12. 

Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Blaine. 

No.  1544.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Fel  huj.  Jioie  20,  1892.  (Received  August  9.) - 
Sm:  In  my  dispatch  Ko.  1542,  of  June  17，  I  transmitted  to  you  copies 
of  a  ('(nTPsimii 山' nr"  lx-tw con  tlio  foreign  ol1i(;e  and  myself  touching 
tha  (jucstion  w  lief  ln'i  11"'  IMcsidciit  had  a pjnoved  the  recent  act  of 
( 'oiilucss  rchitiii^  to  (Jliim's,'  i-rst riction.  Ilnviiiii  rccciviMl  your  cable- 
gi;im  oi'  June  1 7,  ol'  which  I  acUnowk'dgcd  the  receipt  ill  my  dispatch 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  25 

Ko.  1543,  of  June  19，  I  sent  this  day  to  the  foreign  office  a  communica- 
tion of  which  a  copy  is  herewith  inclosed.    I  shall  await  your  instruc- 
tions of  the  17th  ultimo  before  taking  any  further  action. 
I  have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


[Inclosure  in  No.  1544.] 

Mr.  Denby  to  the  Tsung-U  Yamen. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  June  20,  1892. 

Your  Highness  and  Yottr  Excellencies  ：  I  have  the  horsor  to  inform  your  Mgli- 
ness  and  your  excellencies  that  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State  has  informed  me  by 
cablegram  that  tlie  r】vsidL'!if  lias  approved  the  recent  Chinese  restriction  law  which 
was  enacted  by  Congress,  extending  existing'  legislation  ten  years. 

An  official  copy  of  this  law  was  mailed  to  me  on  the  17th  ultimo,  but  h.'is  not  yet 
reached  me.  I  will  transmit  a  copy  thereof  to  your  highness  and  your  excellencies 
as  soon  as  one  reaches  me.  In  advance  of  the  receipt  of  an  official  copy  it  would 
serve  no  good  purpose  to  set  out  in  detail  the  provisions  of  this  law,  but  judgiug 
from  newspaper  copies  that  I  have  seen  thereof  it  is  safe  to  say  that  it  simply  ex- 
tends existing  laws  for  the  period  of  ten  years,  and  provides  some  additional  safe- 
guards for  their  execution. 

It  does  not  apply  to  auy  class  of  Chinese  subjects  except  laborers. 
I  have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


No.  13. 

Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Blaine* 

No.  1553.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

PeMn,  July  5,  1892.    (Received  August  17.) 

Sir  :  In  your  dispatch  No.  725,  of  May  17  last,  you  inclosed  a  circular 
of  the  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  covering'  printed  copies  of  the 
acts  of  Congress  from  May  6,  1882,  to  May  5,  1892  (except  the  act  of 
September  13，  1888)，  relating  to  Chinese  exclusion. 

I  have  now  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  I  transmitted  to  the  foreign 
office  on  tlie  4tb  day  of  July  a  printed  copy  of  the  said  circular,  together 
with  a  communication  of  which  a  copy  is  herewith  inclosed. 
工 have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


[Inclosure  No.  1553.] 

Mr.  Denby  to  the  Tsung-U  Yam6n. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  July  4,  1892. 

Your  Highness  and  Your  Excellencies  :  Tn  my  communication  to  your  high- 
ness and  your  excellencies  of  June  20,  1892,  I  had  the  honor  to  state  that  I  would 
transmit  to  you  a  copy  of  the  recent  act  of  Congress  entitled  "An  act  to  prohibit  the 
coming  of  Chinese  persons  to  the  United  States,"  as  soon  as  I  should  receive  a  copy 
thereof. 

I  have  now  the  honor  to  inclose  copies  of  the  following  papers,  viz : 
First.  A  circular  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  informing  collectors  and  other 
officers  of  the  customs  of  tlie  passage  and  approval  of  the  above-mentioned  act. 
Second.  A  copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  above  mentioned,  approved  May  5,  1892. 


26 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


Third.  A  copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  May  6,  1882. 

Fourth.  A  copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  July  5，  1884. 

Fifth.  A  copy  of  the  act  of  Cougi  ess  approved  October  1,  1888. 

These  acts  cover  all  the  legislation  of  Cougress  on  Chinese  exclusion  except  the 
act  approved  September  13,  1888.  This  last  act  was  dependent  by  its  terms  (m  the 
ratification  of  the  proposed  treaty  of  1888，  and  was  to  take  effect  only  after  tlie  rati- 
ticatiou  of  that  treaty.  As  the  treaty  of  1888  was  not  ratified  by  China,  this  act  never 
became  operative. 
I  have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby, 


No.  14. 

Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Foster. 

Ko.  1569.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  August  18, 1892.    (Received  September  28.) 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  a  translation  of  a  communication 
that  I  recently  received  from  tlie  foreign  office  on  the  subject  of  Chinese 
exclusion  legislation  of  the  United  States,  together  with  a  copy  of  niy 
answer  thereto. 

Under  Article  iv  of  the  treaty  of  1880  (Treaties  1776-1887,  p.  183)  it 
is  competent  for  the  foreign  ofhee  to  take  up  this  discussion  with  the 
minister  of  the  ITnited  States  at  Peking. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  yanien  severely  criticises  the  legislation  in 
question  and  requests  that  the  President  take  steps  to  secure  its  repeal. 
A  sufficient  abstract  of  this  coinmuDication  will  be  found  in  my  answer 
thereto. 

On  account  of  an  intimation  in  the  Department's  dispatch,  No.  553, 
of  September  24,  1890,  I  have  hitherto  forbore  to  enter  into  any  argu- 
ment with  the  foreign  office  on  this  subject.  In  the  preseut  conjuncture 
of  affairs,  I  concluded  tbat  a  temperate  presentation  to  the  yamen  ot 
tlie  scope,  effect,  and  legality  of  the  Chinese  exclusion  legislation,  and 
a  reasonable  argument,  tending  to  sliow  that,  by  the  treaty  of  1880, 
Uhina  】iad  given  her  consent  to  tlie  enactment  thereof,  would  produce 
a  good  effect.  Such  discussion,  in  my  opinion,  will  tend  to  remove 
from  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  yamGn  misconceptions  as  to  the 
character  of  this  legislation,  and  if  retaliatory  measures  were  being  con- 
sidered一 of  which  I  have  no  information 一 it  might  cause  a  halt  in  the 
adoption  thereof. 

Tlie  reading  of  my  answer  to  the  grave  charges  made  by  the  yamen 
will  show  that  I  have  confined  myself  chiefly  to  making  a  legal  argu- 
ment. 

Owinoj  to  tlie  intimation  already  mentioned,  contained  in  the  Depart- 
ment's dispatch  cited,  I  did  not  feel  authoiized  to  enter  upon  a  discus- 
sion of  the  broad  ^touikIs  upon  wliich  such  legislation  iiiiglit  be  de- 
fended, nor  did  I  feel  autliorized  to  enter  into  an  effort  to  show  that 
such  legislation  did  not  cootravene  Article  n  of  the  treaty,  whereby 
('('i  tain  rights  and  immunities  were  guaranteed  to  Chinese  laborers  who 
were  in  tlie  United  States  at  tlie  date  of  the  treaty. 

As  I  ha\c  never  received  any  instructions  from  the  Doi)artinent  on 
this  subject,  it  did  not  ap]>eiir  to  me  that  it  would  be  prudent  to  discuss 
the  ^ciHM-jil  rchit ions  of  the  two  couutrit's  or  to  surest  remedies  that 
mi^iit  i<'Mio\'(i  tli,'  uiitortunate  friction  now  existing.  Your  own  wis- 
dom ;iik1  c\|K'i  i('i!cc  will  ^iiw'-st  a  ^riKM'al  treat inent  of  the  questions 
involved,  slioiild  sucli  ii  policy  be  desired  by  you. 
1  have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


27 


[Inclosure  1  in  No.  1569.] 
The  T»ung-li  Yamin  to  Mr.  D&nby, 

Peking,  August  5, 1892. 

Upon  the  4th  of  July  last  the  prince  and  ministers  liad  the  honor  to  receive  a  com- 
muuication  from  the  minister  of  the  United  States  wherein  he  stated  that  he  had 
received  a  copy  of  the  new  exclusion  act  against  Chinese  laborers,  and  inclosing  in 
English ―  • 

First.  A  circular  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  informing  collectors  of  customs 
of  the  passage  and  approval  of  the  above-mentioned  act. 

Second.  A  copy  of  the  above  mentioned  act,  approved  May  5,  1892. 

Third.  A  copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  May  6,  1882. 

Fourth.  A  copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  July  4，  1884. 

Fifth.  A  copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  October  1，  1888. 

The  minister  of  the  United  States  stated  that  these  acts  covered  all  the  legislation 
of  Congress  on  Chinese  exclusion. 

The  priuce  and  ministers  would  observe  that  it  appears  that  the  exclusion  of  Chi- 
nese laborers  for  a  limited  period  had  its  origin  in  the  6th  year  of  Knang  Hsii,  tenth 
moon,  15tli  day,  November  17,  1880,  by  a  supplementary  treaty  concluded  between 
China  and  the  United  States. 

Afterwards,  in  1882,  the  first  exclusion  act  was  adopted,  which  was  very  severe  in 
its  terms.  In  1884  this  act  was  revised  and  amended  .and  it  may  be  said  that  noth- 
ing was  left  to  make  it  as  strong  as  possible  ；  still  it  was  not  clearly  expressed  as  an 
abrogation  of  the  treaty. 

The  law  of  October  1，  1888,  was  a  complete  discarding  of  the  friendly  relations 
that  have  existed  between  China  and  the  United  States  for  several  tens  of  years. 

The  yam^n  and  the  Chinese  minister  to  the  United  States  have  repeatedly  ad- 
dressed communications  discussing  the  question  upon  the  basis  of  the  treaties,  but 
the  minister  of  the  United  States  and  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State  has  never 
sent  anything  of  a  decisive  nature  in  reply. 

The  new  act  approved  May  5  contains  nine  articles  and  continues  in  force,  for  a 
period  of  ten  years,  the  law  of  1884  on  expiring  of  same  ( ？).  The  prince  and  minis- 
ters, having  duly  perused  the  said  act,  feel  it  incumbent  to  explain  to  the  minister 
of  the  United  States  their  views  regarding  same. 

Article  n  of  the  new  act  reads  as  follows : 

"That  any  Chinese  person  or  person  of  Chinese  descent,  when  convicted  and  ad- 
judged under  any  of  said  laws  to  be  not  lawfully  entitled  to  be  or  remain  in  the 
United  States,  "shall  be  removed  from  the  United  States  to  China,  unless  he  or  they 
shall  make  it  appear  to  the  justice,  judge,  or  commissioner  "before  whom  he  or  tliey 
are  tried  that  he  or  they  are  subjects  or  citizens  of  some  other  country,  in  which 
case  he  or  they  shall  be  removed  from  the  United  States  to  sueli  country :  Provided, 
That  in  any  case  where  such  other  country  of  which  such  Chinese  person  shall  claim 
to  be  a  citizen  or  subject  shall  demand  any  tax  as  a  condition  of  the  removal  of  such 
person  to  that  country,  lie  or  she  shall  be  removed  to  China." 

The  yamen  does  not  know  whether  the  term  Chinese  citizen  or  subject  refers  en- 
tirely to  the  laboring  classes  resident  in  tlie  United  States,  or  includes  the  exempt 
classes,  as  teachers,  students,  merchants,  or  those  traveling  from  curiosity.  By  the 
second  article  of  the  supplemental  treaty  between  the  tjnited  States  and  China 
(e  Chinese  subjects,  whether  proceeding  to  the  United  States  as  teachers,  students, 
merchants,  or  from  curiosity,  together  with  their  body  and  household  servants,  and 
Chinese  laborers  who  are  now  in  the  United  States,  shall  be  allowed  to  go  and  come 
of  their  own  free  will  and  accord,  and  shall  be  accorded  all  the  rights,  privileges, 
immunities,  and  exemptions  whicli  are  accorded  to  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  most 
favored  nation." 

Section  3  of  tlie  act  of  1884  is  clear  and  explicit.  It  reads  as  follows :  "That  (tlie 
two  foregoing  sections)  shall  not  apply  to  Chinese  laborers  who  were  in  the  United 
States  on  the  17th  day  of  November,  188 &，  or  who  shall  have  come  into  the  same  be- 
fore the  expiration  of  ninety  days  next  after  the  passage  of  the  act."  There  is  still 
further  no  necessity  of  discussing  the  question  of  Chinese  merchants  and  others  who 
are  exempt  and  not  included  in  the  exclusion  act. 

By  the  act  of  May  5, 1892,  the  language  used  is  Chinese  citizen  or  subject,  and  no 
distinction  of  class  is  made.  Again  it  is  stated  "under  any  of  said  laws  to  be  not 
lawfully  entitled  to  be  or  remain  in  the  United  States."  Does  the  expression  "  un- 
der any  of  said  laws"  refer  to  the  treaties  or  laws  concluded  by  the  two  countries ？ 

Again,  by  the  third  section  of  the  new  act,  it  reads : 

u  That  any  Chinese  person,  or  persons  of  Chinese  descent,  arrested  under  the  pro- 
vision of  this  act,  or  the  acts  hereby  extended,  shall  be  adjudged  to  be  unlawfully 
within  the  United  States  unless  sucli  person  shall  establish,  by  affirmative  proof  to 
the  satisfiiction  of  such  justice,  judge,  or  coinuiissioner,  his  lawful  right  to  remain 
in  the  United  States." 


28 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


The  yamen  would  observe  that  it  was  originally  under  the  provisions  of  the  T?ur- 
lingaine  treaty  of  1868  that  Chinese  laborers  migrated  to  the  United  States.  If 
affirmative  proof  is  asked  for  this  treaty  should  be  taken,  as  it  is  certainly  real 
affirmative  proof. 

Sections  n  and  in  of  the  supplemental  treaty  of  1880  may  also  be  cited  as  includ- 
ing affirmative  proof. 

The  United  States  Government  at  present  disregards  the  treaties,  a*id  is  moving 
with  force  to  arrest  Chinese  subjects.  Such  action  the  prince  and  ministers  con- 
sider as  appearing  to  be  greatly  at  variance  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

Section  iv  refers  to  imprisonment  at  hard  labor.  The  prince  and  ministers  would 
inquire  whether  the  laboring  classes  of  other  countries,  who  go  to  the  United  States, 
are  treated  in  such  a  harsh  and  tyrannical  manner.  Can  it  be  said  that  they  enjoyed 
the  same  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and  exemptions  which  are  accorded  to  the 
citizens  and  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation? 

Section  v  reads :  "  That  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  on  an  application  to  any 
judge  or  court  of  the  United  States  in  the  first  instance  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
by  a  Chinese  person  seeking  to  land  in  the  United  States,  to  whom  that  privilege 
has  been  denied,  no  bail  shall  be  allowed,  and  such  application  shall  be  heard  and 
determined  promptly  without  unnecessary  delay." 

It  appears  that  there  is  a  rule  or  law  in  the  United  States  which  admits  of  the  citi- 
zens and  subjects  of  foreign  powers,  resident  in  the  United  States,  when  an  action  at 
law  has  been  instituted  against  them  before  the  courts  to  apply  and  obtain  bail 
pending  the  trial  of  the  case. 

If  the  granting  of  bail  is  to  be  denied  Chinamen  awaiting  trial,  then  where  will 
their  dwelling  places  be?  Besides  it  is  certainly  the  case  that  judges  or  justices  can 
not  take  up  [every]  case  on  their  arrival  in  court.  In  a  word  the  true  and  honest 
procedure  would  be  to  still  conform  to  the  rule  to  grant  bail  pending  trial. 

Section  vi  of  the  new  law  reads  as  follows  : 

"And  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  all  Chinese  laborers  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  who  are  entitled  to  remain  in  the 
United  States,  to  apply  to  the  collectors  of  internal  revenue  of  their  respective  dis- 
tricts, within  one  year  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  for  a  certificate  of  residence, 
and  any  Chinese  laborer  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  who  shall  neglect,  fail, 
or  refuse  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  or  who,  after  one  year  from  the 
passage  thereof,  shall  be  found  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  without 
such  certificate  of  residence  shall  be  deemed  and  adjudged  to  be  unlawfully  within 
the  United  States,  and  may  be  arrested  by  any  United  States  customs  official,  col- 
lector of  internal  revenue  or  his  deputies,  United  States  marshal  or  his  deputies,  and 
taken  before  a  United  States  judge,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  order  that  he  be  de- 
ported from  the  United  States,  as  hereinbefore  provided,  unless  he  shall  establish 
clearly  to  the  satisfaction  of  sucli  judge  that  by  reason  of  accident,  sickness,  or 
other  unavoidable  cause,  he  has  been  unable  to  procure  his  certificate,  and  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  court,  and  by  at  least  one  credible  white  witness,  that  he  was  a 
resident  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act;  and  if  upon  the 
hearing  it  shall  appear  that  he  is  so  entitled  to  a  certificate  it  shall  be  granted  upon  his 
paying  the  cost.  Should  it  appear  that  said  Chinaman  had  procured  a  certificate 
which  has  been  lost  or  destroyed  he  shall  be  detained  and  jrulgment  suspended  a 
reasonable  time  to  enable  him  to  procure  a  duplicate  from  the  officer  granting  it,  and 
in  such  cases  the  cost  of  such  arrest  and  trial  shall  be  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 
And  any  Chinese  person  other  than  a  Chinese  laborer,  having  a  right  to  be  and  re- 
m:iining  in  the  United  States,  desiring  such  certificate  as  evidence  of  such  right  may 
apply  for  and  receive  the  same  without  charge." 

The  yamen  would  observe  that  Chinese  laborers,  resident  in  the  United  States,  are 
scattered  about  in  cities  and  towns  where  China  is  not  represented  by  consular  of- 
ficers. Among  this  class  of  laborers  there  are  some  who  do  not  speak  or  read  Eng- 
lish, and  if  they  must  provide  certificates  within  the  limited  period  of  one  year, 
and,  on  a  failure  to  do  so  they  will  be  arrested  and  brouulit  before  the  courts  for 
puniHhment,  it  goes  without  saying  that  they  will  become  involved  into  a  great  deal 
of  trouble,  :m<l  it  is  to  be  feared  the  local  authorities  will  be  excessively  annoyed 
and  hot hcrcd  and  in  comparison  with  tlie  articles  of  the  supplemental  treaty  of 
1880  (the  new  act)  contains  much  more  matter. 

As  to  section  7,  8,  and  9  of  the  new  act,  these  refer  to  the  rules  and  rwi】：iti。"s 
the  Sc(  r«'t;iry  of  thr  Tre:is'iry  of  the  United  States  shall  make,  and  ou  examiiuition 
with  tin;  rules  issued  hy  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  dat (； d  December  6，  1884,  it 
a])pc;irs  are  greatly  at  variance  therewith. 

In  the  matter  of  the  al>ove  new  act,  which  contains  nine  sectionH,  tbe  yam^n  have 
('x:uiiiTM',(l  the  tr(iati<iH  as  well  as  lln-  cases  th:it  】i:ive  transpired,  iiml  tlie  prince  and 
niiiiist<TH  would  request  tho  United  States  iniuiHter  to  inemoriali/.e  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  instruct  Congress  to  reconsider  the  receut  exclusion  act,  so  that 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


29 


it  may  be  in  due  observance  of  international  law,  and  thus  show  a  feeling  of  regard 
for  the  relations  of  the  two  countries. 

It  appears  that  after  the  act  of  July,  1884,  was  passed  by  Congress  the  President 
of  the  United  States  at  that  time  sent  to  Congress,  on  the  1st  of  December  of  that 
year,  a  message  wherein  he  called  attention  to  the  supplemental  treaty  between 
the  United  States  and  China,  and  stated  that  in  the  action  taken  with  regard  to  the 
exclusion  of  Chinese  for  a  certain  period  the  original  intent  and  purpose  of  tlie 
treaty  should  be  considered,  and  that  it  seemed  necessary  to  again  deliberate  upon 
the  question  in  a  satisfactory  and  proper  way,  the  previous  bill  being  a  violation  of 
treaty,  the  terms  of  which  should  be  carefully  amended. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  authority,  when  Congress  decides  and 
enacts  a  law  in  violation  of  treaty  rights,  to  (return  the  same)  and  request  a  recon- 
sideration of  it.  The  act  of  May  5, 丄 892，  containing  nine  sections,  is  in  many  re- 
spects a  violation  of  the  treaties,  and  is  merely  a  continuation  of  the  old  exclusion 
acts  of  1884  and  1882,  and  the  evil  reached  the  members  of  the  Ckinese  diplomatic 
service,  for  in  1886  the  Chinese  minister  accredited  to  the  United  States  was  not 
allowed  to  land  in  San  Francisco  until  he  had  showed  his  credentials,  which  was 
demanded  by  the  (coinniissioner)  collector  of  customs. 

These  acts  have  injured  the  reputation  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
as  well  as  the  friendly  relations  that  have  existed  between  the  two  countries,  and 
the  yamen  expresses  the  hope  tliat  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will,  in  an 
equitable  and  satisfactory  mauner,  rectify  the  discrepancy  shown  against  China  in 
the  unfair  treatment  manifested  toward  the  Chinese  subjects. 

The  prince  and  ministers  beg  that  the  minister  of  the  United  States  will  peruse 
this  communicatiou  and  favor  them  with  a  reply. 

A  necessary  communicatiou  addressed  to  Ms  excellency,  Charles  Denby. 


[Inclosure  2  in  No.  1569.] 

Mr.  Denby  to  the  tsmig-li  yamen. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Peking,  August  18,  1892. 
Your  Highness  and  Your  Excellencies  ：  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the 
receipt  of  your  couiuiunication  of  the  5th  instant,  relative  to  the  Chinese  exclusion 
acts  of  the  United  States.  You  therein  desire  rne  to  briug  your  criticisms  aud  ob- 
jections to  the  attention  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  a  remedy 
may  be  provided  for  the  imjust  manner,  as  you  allege,  in  which  Chinese  subjects 
have  been  treated. 

I  will,  witli  great  pleasure,  send  to  the  Department  of  State  a  translation  of  your 
coiumuuication.  After  having  received  instructions  I  will  communicate  with  your 
highness  aud  your  excellencies  further. 

I  beg  to  remark,  however,  that  article  1  of  the  treaty  of  1880  contains  the  express 
consent  of  China  that  the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers  to  the  United  States  "or  their 
residence  therein,"  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
such  corning  or  residence  "  affects  or  threatens  to  affect  the  interests  "  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  endanger  the  good  order  thereof,  or  any  part  thereof,  may ― both  coming 
and  residence ― be  regulated  and  suspended. 

So  far  as  the  legislation  of  Congress  applies  to  Chinese  laborers  who  have  entered 
the  United  States  since  the  act  of  May  6,  1882，  was  enacted,  there  can  be  no  question 
that  such  legislation  is  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty.  As  to 
whether  laborers  who  were  lawfully  in  the  United  States  prior  to  May  6,  1882,  have 
been  deprived  of  any  right  guaranteed  by  the  second  article  of  the  treaty  may  not  at 
all  be  a  practical  q.iiesiioii.  It  would  be  necessary  to  ascertain  how  many  such 
laborers  there  are,  if  any,  where  they  reside,  and  in  Vliat  manner  they  are,  or  claim 
to  be,  injured.  After  this  lapse  of  time,  and  with  the  known  inclination  of  such 
persons  to  return  to  China,  my  opinion  is  that  few  of  this  class  will  be  found  in  the 
United  States. 

I  propose  now  to  show  that  the  recent  act  of  Congress  is  perfectly  in  accord  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.    The  following  is  a  brief  abstract  of  this  law: 

The  first  section  simply  continues  in  force  existing  laws  for  ten  years. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  is  not  prohibition,  but  regulation,  limiting,  and  sns- 
pending,  and  therefore  in  accord  with  the  treaty. 

Second  section.  This  section  provides  for  the  removal  to  China  or,  in  certain  con- 
tingencies, to  other  countries,  of  Chinese  laborers  who  are  found  to  be  unlawfully  in 
tlie  United  States.  No  argument  is  necessary  to  justify  this  section.  Removal  is 
both  a  mild  and  necessary  form  of  puuishment. 


30 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


Third  section.  This  section  requires  affirmative  proof  of  the  right  to  remain  in  the 
United  Statos  to  be  made  by  an  accused  person. 

Usually  in  legal  proceedings  neither  party  is  required  to  prove  a  negative.  It 
would  or  might  be  impossible  for  the  Gov(irnment  to  prove  the  time  when  ami  Th.- 
place  where  au  alien  entered  its  territory,  but  it  is  exceedingly  easy  for  the  accused 
to  prove  tbe  facts  as  they  are  iu  bis  own  knowledge.  Generally,  a  person  claiming 
that  he  has  a  license  to  do  a.  given  act  must  produce  his  license. 

Fourth  section.  This  section  fixes  a  penalty  of  one  year's  irnprisoument  for  un- 
lawfully entering  the  United  States. 

In  niy  opinion,  this  clause  is  not  retroactive,  but  applies  to  those  persons  only  who 
have  entered  or  shall  unlawfully  enter  the  United  States  after  May  5,  1892. 

Fifth  section.  This  section  deuies  the  privilege  of  giving  bail  to  persons vwho  have 
sued  out  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

While  under  the  Constitution  (clause  2,  sec.  21，  2d  Ed.  Rev.  Stat.,  1878)  this  writ 
must  issue,  except  in  certain  oases,  there  is  no  clause  in  the  Constitution  providing 
in  what  cases  bail  is  admissible.  The  power  of  dcterminiiig  what  cases  shall  be 
bailable,  and  what  not,  is  left  to  Congress.  In  this  case  Congress  has  chosen  to  deny 
bail.  It  was  influenced,  no  doubt,  by  the  fact  that  iu  many  cases  bail  bonds  proved 
to  "be  worthless. 

Sixth  section.  This  section  requires  all  Chinese  laborers  to  take  out  a  certificate 
of  residence.  Easy  means  are  provided  for  the  issuing  of  such  certificates.  If  sick- 
ness or  other  good  cause  prohibited  the  securing  of  a  certificate,  that  fact  may  be 
proved  and  time  given  to  secure  one;  so  if  a  certiftcate  lias  l»eeu  lost. 

There  is  no  peculiar  hardship  in  this  system.  It  is  something  like  the  passport 
and  travel-certificate  system  prevailing:  in  China.  It  will  prove  a  benefit  instead  of 
an  injury  to  the  laborer.  The  production  of  a  certificate  at  any  time  will  relieve 
him  from  all  trouble. 

Seventh,  eighth,  and  ninth  sections.  These  sections  are  not  material  to  this  dis- 
cussion. They  provide  for  rules  to  be  made  to  put  the  act  in  operation,  for  penalties 
for  forgery,  and  compensation  to  officials. 

Your  highness  and  your  excellencies  say  that  you  do  ''not  know  whether  the  term 
Chinese  citizen  or  subject  refers  entirely  to  the  laboring  classes  resident  in  the 
United  States,  or  includes  the  exempt  classes,"  etc. 

The  act  of  May  5,  1892,  continues  in  force  the  proper  acts,  of  which  copies  were 
sent  to  you. 

The  act  of  May  6,  1882,  is  the  first  of  these  acts.  Its  language  is  "the  coming  of 
Chinese  laborers  to  the  TJnited  States"  is  suspended. 

The  act  of  1884  amends  the  act  of.  1882  and  adopts  the  same  language. 

The  act  of  October  1，  1888,  enacts  that  "it  shall  be  unlawful  for  auy  Chinese 
laborer"  to  return  to  the  United  States  after  having  departed  therefrom. 

All  these  laws,  therefore,  app]y  [to  Chinese  laborers  and  simply  provide  as  to 
other  classes  a  mode  of  identification. 

Your  liig-bness  and  your  excellencies  further  observe  that  it  was  originally  under 
the  provisions  of  the  Burlin^ame  treaty  of  1868  that  Chinese  laborers  migrated  to 
the  United  States,  and  that  this  treaty  constitutes  affirmative  proof,  as  required  by 
tbe  third  section  of  the  act  of  May  5，  1892. 

The  treaty  has  no  bearing  on  the  proof  of  the  time  when  a  laborer  went  to  the 
United  States.  This  date  muat  be  proved,  and  if  a  Chinese  laborer  was  a  resident 
of  the  United  States  prior  to  May  6,  1882,  he  will  not  be  affected  by  any  of  this  legis- 
lation, provided  he  takes  out  a  certificate  of  residence. 

Your  liiglmrss  ； md  your  excellencies  state  that  the  penalty  of  imprisonment  affixed 
by  section  4  is  excessive  aud  that  laborers  of  other  countries  are  not  liable  to  such 
])iiiiishment. 

Jt  was  for  Congress  to  (let ermine  what  the  punishment  for  an  infraction  of  this 
law  .sliould  be.  It  bas  named  the  lowest  penalty  that  is  usually  attached  to  crimes. 
'J'liat  laborers  of  otluT  countries  are  not  liable  to  such  punishment  may  be  true,  but 
the  United  Sta.tes  lias  no  treaty  similar  to  the  treaty  of  1880  with  ;iuy  other  p()、、'er. 

I  o  ;ilr«':i(ly  (liscusst'd  the  eli'ect  of  section  6  of  the  new  law,  wliicli  relates  to  the 
refusal  of  1>;i  il  oil  ;i])j»lication  lor  u  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  I  do  not  know  where  per- 
Hons  who  sikmI  out  a  、vrit  of  habeas  corpus  would  stay  befort;  trial.  I  suppose 
in  practice,  it'  tb (； y  could  not  remain  alx>ard  the  shi]>  which  transported  tliom  to  the 

I  nitcd  States,  some  ot her  ]»l;ice  would  be  provided  by  the  authorities. 

I  ii  "'hat  I  h;i、.t,  writ  "'ii  I  ha\c  t  rcjitcd  t'lle  questions  involved  as  questions  oi'  law. 

I I  docs  not  conic,  \\  ithin  the  piirvimv  of  1  lie  (li])lomati (-  officer  to  discuss  the  intrinsic 
iiK-i  it n  or 山' iiirriN  of  the  laws  of  his  country.  I  beg  to  remark,  however,  th.it  if 
tlie  treaty  of  lsss  had  been  approved  by  the  Goveniment  of  China  the  questions 
now  niootod  would  not  ！ ia\  <•  arism.  ( 'hina  :it  tliat  time  seemed  to  fear  that  if  that 
I  if-ai  \-  \\fi  ； i])jn()\'c(l  similar  tn':il"'s  would  lia\e  to  ho  conceded  to  other  powers. 
•SLe  j>r<-l'i  r-c<|  tlnit  her  proplc  .should  )>e  ])icvent(Ml  froui  going  to  the  United  States 
by  an  ucl  oi  Con^i »;ss  whicli  she  nii^ht  <l<  si^n;ite  atj  an ti treaty  leyislatiou  to  their 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


31 


being  excluded  from  other  parts  of  tlie  world  by  her  own  consent.  The  danger  of 
this  policy  was  pointed  out  by  me  at  the  time,  and  events  have  justified  my  re- 
monstrance. 

I  avail,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


No.  15. 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Foster. 

Chinese  Legation, 
Washington,  November  7, 1892..  (Received  November  7.) 

Sm :  In  compliance  with  instructions  from  the  Imperial  Government, 
and  also  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  numerous  petitions  received  from 
Chinese  residents  of  the  United  States,  it  again  becomes  my  duty  to 
call  your  attention  and  the  attention  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  the  unjust,  unfair,  and  discrimiiiatiug  legislation  of  the  Con- 
gress against  my  countrymen,  which  oas  been  enacted  regardless  of 
their  vested  rights  and  in  violation  of  the  solemn  treaty  stipulations 
now  in  force  between  the  Imperial  Chinese  Governmeut  and  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States. 

In  my  communication  to  your  predecessor  of  March  26，  1890  (in  which 
I  referred  to  communications  of  my  predecessor  of  January  26,  1889， 
and  July  8，  1889,  upon  the  same  subject),  there  was  a  full  discussion  of 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  October  1，  1888,  and  to 
which  reference  is  now  made,  with  the  request  that  the  argument  and 
presentation  of  the  question  therein  may  be  read  and  considered  as  a 
part  of  this  note. 

On  October  1，  1890,  not  having  heard  from  your  predecessor  in  re- 
sponse to  my  uote  of  March  20, 1890, 1  was  impelled  by  an  urgent  sense 
of  duty  to  transmit  another  note  to  the  Department  of  State  requesting 
attention  to  former  coniinuiiications,  and  asking  that  I  might  be  favored 
as  promptly  as  possible  with  the  views  aud  intentions  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  difficulties  which  liad  then 
unhappily  ariseu?  and  which  still  continue  to  exist  between  our  nations. 

On  the  6th  day  of  tlie  same  month  Mr.  Secretary  Blaine  replied  in  a 
most  courteous  note,  explaining  the  delay,  etc.,  and  then  said :  "Tlie 
questions  which  you  present  have  been,  and  now  are,  the  subject  of 
careful  consideration  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  and  I  hope  to  be 
able  at  an  early  day  to  convey  to  you  the  views  of.  the  President  in  an 
ample  and  loriiial  maimer." 

The  promised  views  and  intentions  of  the  President  had  not  been  re- 
ceived on  December  4,  1890，  and  I  again  addressed  tlie  Department  of 
State  upon  the  subject,  and  set  forth  in  my  note  of  that  date  the  ob- 
jections of  my  Government  to  the  act  of  Congress  approved  October  1， 
1888，  and  the  desire  of  the  tsung-li  yam  en  that  it  should  have  been  re- 
pealed before  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  or  modified  m  such  manner 
as  to  avoid  the  hardships  that  would  befall  my  countrymen  by  its  enforce- 
ment, and  preserve,  with  honor  to  both  nations,  the  treaty  stipulations 
so  solemnly  entered  into  between  them  j  and  that  my  Government  had 
been  greatly  disappointed  to  learu  of  the  adjournment  of  Congress 
witliout  any  action  whatever.  I  also  stated  iu  a  general  way  the  effect 
of  the  law  upon  tlie  business  interests  of  my  countrymen  who  were, 
most  of  them,  innocently  and  without  any  knowledge  of  the  existence 
of  such  a  law,  brought  within  its  unjust  provisions. 


32 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


Other  notes  were  transmitted  to  tlis  Department  of  State  upon  the 
same  subject,  and  when  I  had  occasion  to  make  personal  calls  at  the 
Department,  I  reminded  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  fact  that  I  had 
not  received  the  promised  communication  expressing  in  a  formal  man- 
ner the  views  and  intentions  of  the  President  in  relation  to  tlie  exclu- 
sion legislation  of  Congress  of  October  1,  1888.  The  promised  views 
and  intentions  of  the  President  had  not  been  received  when  Congress 
again  convened  in  December,  1891,  and  numeroas  bills  were  introduced 
in  both  Houses  of  Congress  upon  the  subject  of  the  exclusion  or  the 
Chinese  from  the  United  States.  It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark 
here  that  the  object  of  the  introduction  of  these  bills  is  well  under- 
stood in  both  China  and  the  United  States. 

On  April  11,  1892，  in  the  absence  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  I  called 
on  Assistant  Secretary  Wharton  and  informed  him  that  1  had  received 
a  cablegram  from  the  tsung-li  yamen  in  regard  to  the  passage  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  what  was  knowu  as  the  Geary  bill,  which 
was  harsher  and  more  objectionable  in  its  terms  than  any  bill  that  had 
previously  passed  either  House  of  Congress,  and  violated,  in  my  opinion, 
every  iinportant  provision  of  the  treaty  of  1880.  The  substance  of  the 
cablegram  was  communicated  to  Mr.  Wharton,  who,  in  answer  to  my 
inquiry  as  to  what  course  I  should  adopt,  advised  me  to  send  a  note  to 
the  Department  setting  forth  the  views  of  tlie  Imperial  Government, 
and  he  stated  that  a  copy  of  such  note  would  be  transmitted  to  the 
Committee  ou  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States  Senate,  the  com- 
mittee that  would  then  have  the  House  bill  under  consideration. 

On  the  next  day,  April  12，  1892，  I  presented  and  tiled  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  such  a  statement  as  was  suggested  by  Mr.  Wharton,  in 
which  will  be  found  the  objections  of  my  Government  to  the  bill  and 
cogent  reasons  against  its  enactment  into  a  law. 

On  April  21,  1892,  I  advised  the  Department  of  State  of  the  receipt 
of  a  second  cablegram  from  the  tsung-li  yamen  upon  the  same  subject, 
in  which  I  was  instructed  to  urge  upon  the  Secretary  of  State  the 
importance  to  both  governments  of  the  preservation  of  the  existing 
treaty  stipulations,  which  the  pending  legislation  threatened  to  de- 
stroy, and  repeated  my  earnest  desire  that  the  Secretary  of  State 
would  do  everything  in  his  power  to  avert  the  menaced  violations  of 
the  treaties  by  the  Cougress  of  the  United  States. 

But,  notwithstanding*  my  protests  against  the  proposed  legislation, 
on  behalf  of  my  Government,  the  Geary  bill  was  amended  by  tlie  Senate 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and  passed.  The  amended  Senate 
bill  was  too  liberal  in  its  provisions  for  those  who  had  proposed  the  leg- 
islation in  the  House,  and  when  it  reached  that  body  the  ameiidineuts 
Avere  non concurred  in  and  conferees  appointed.  The  conference  com- 
mittee reported  the  bill,  which  was  approved  May  5,  1892,  but  not 
iniiinimously,  inasmuch  as  some  of  the  ablest  of  that  committee  declined 
to  ； I "ree  to  or  to  sign  the  report  and  opposed  its  adoption  by  forcible 
ar^iuiKMits.  The  report  of  the  conference  coinniittee  was,  however, 
adopted  in  both  the  Senate  and  House,  and  the  bill  transmitted  to  tlie 
Pi  esident  for  liis  signature. 

ruder  tliis  alanniii,^  state  of  affairs  I  again  addressed  a  note  to  tlie 
])q>;irtinwit  of  State,  rciicwiii^  tlie  protests  and  objections  to  the  leg- 
islation, insisting  tluit  tlie  treaties  between  tlie  ^ovenniieiits  should  be 
pi  <  i  \  <  (1.  him]  ;i>k<'d  tlir  Scci  ctaiy  ol'Stntc  to  l;iy  before  the  President 
of  1  lie  I '  nilcd  Statos  my  most  urgent  protests  for  his  considei  at  ion  be- 
l<»i  <•  he  should  net  ii]x>ii  o]-  c  liis  ； 1 1 »])ioval  t<>  the  bill;  1  i esi)c'cti'ully  • 
iclvi  you  to  said  note  i'<>v  my  views  upon  the  effect  of  such  legislation 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


33 


and  for  a  brief  statement  of  the  hardships  imposed  upon  mj  country- 
men in  the  United  States  by  its  unjust  and  personal  provisions,  which 
apply  to  them  alone  as  a  class  of  people,  most  of  whom  are  legitimate 
residents  of  the  United  States  and  entitled  to  the  same  protection, 
privileges,  immunities,  and  exemptions  as  other  residents  therein  of 
the  most  favored  nations.  But  my  protest,  if  considered  by  the  Presi- 
dent at  all,  was  disregarded,  and  on  May  5,  1892,  the  bill  received  his 
approval  and  became  a  law. 

Subsequently  to  tlie  approval  of  the  act  another  note  was  sent  to  the 
Department,  in  which  I  again  expressed  my  views  upon  this  impor- 
tant question. 

The  above  is  a  review  of  the  correspondence  between  the  Secretary 
of  State  and  inyself  upon  the  subject  now  under  consideration  up  to 
this  date,  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark  that  the  same  is  de- 
cidedly one-sided. 

I  regret  most  sincerely  that  I  am  compelled  to  say,  in  a  most  friendly 
way,  that  the  proceedings  which  led  to  this  legislation  and  the  laws 
enacted  in  pursuance  thereof  were  not  required  by  any  existing  emer- 
gency that  had  arisen  between  the  two  nations,  and  the  harshness  of 
the  provisions  of  such  laws  and  the  admitted  violation  of  the  existing 
treaties  between  the  governments  were  unjustifiable,  and  the  course 
of  Congress  in  this  respect  can  not  be  justified  by  any  tiling  to  be  found 
in  the  status  of  China  and  the  Uiiited  States  toward  each  other  at  the 
time. 

The  important  observation  may  be  made  here  that  the  haste  in 
which  bills  relating  to  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  are  rushed  through 
Congress  presents  a  most  deplorable  aspect  of  the  question  now  under 
discussion.  The  act  of  October  1,  1888,  known  as  the  Scott  law  wils, 
I  believe,  passed  without  reference  to  committee,  without  debate,  and 
without  any  sort  of  consideration  whatever.  At  the  last  session  of 
Congress  each  House  hastily  passed  bills  which  crossed  each  other  in 
the  proceedings,  and  out  of  which  the  act  approved  May  5,  1892,  was 
finally  agreed  upon  in  conference  and  enacted  into  a  law.  The  Geary 
bill,  which  contained  most  obnoxious  provisions,  in  connection  with, 
which  there  was  a  minority  report  in  the  House,  was  stricken  out 
in  tlie  Senate  and  the  Dolph  bill  substituted  for  it  and  passed,  upon 
whieli  a  conference  committee  was  appointed,  and  the  result  of  their 
deliberations  was  the  act  approved  May  5，  1892，  as  above  stated. 

In  section  13  of  the  Geary  bill,  as  it  passed  the  House,  will  be  found 
the  following  language: 

Section  13.  That  immediately  after  the  passage  of  this  act  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  shall  make  such  rules  and  regulations  and  prescribe  the  necessary  forms 
to  enable  the  Internal-Revenue  Department  of  the  Government  to  issue  the  certifi- 
cates required  hereby.  Such  certificates  may  be  issued  by  the  deputy  commissioner 
of  internal  revenue  nearest  the  place  where  such  Chinese  resides.  The  certificates 
shall  contain  a  true  photographic  copy  of  the  applicant,  together  with  his  name, 
age,  local  resideDce,  and  occupation,  and  a  duplicate  of  the  same  shall  be  filed  in  the 
office  of  the  coiiimissioner  of  internal  revenue  of  the  district  within  which  such 
Chinaman  makes  application. 

The  section  of  the  act  approved  by  the  President  May  5，  1892,  is  a 
modified  one,  and  reads  as  follows : 

Section  7.  That  immediately  after  the  passage  of  this  act  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  shall  make  such  rules  and  regulations  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  efficient 
execution  of  this  act,  and  shall  prescribe  the  necessary  forms  and  furnisli  the  neces- 
sary blanks  to  enable  the  collectors  of  internal  revenue  to  issue  the  certificates 
required  hereby,  and  make  such  provisions  that  certificates  may  be  procured  in 
localities  convenient  to  the  applicants.    Such  certificates  shall  be  issued  without 

S.  Ex,  54 —— 3 


34 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


charge  to  the  applicant  and  shall  contain  the  name.  age.  local  residence,  aud  occu- 
pation of  the  applicant,  and  such  other  description  of  the  applicant  as  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  a  duplicate  thereof  shall  be  filed  in 
the  office  of  the  collector  of  internal  revenue  for  the  district  within  which  such 
Chiuanian  makes  his  application. 

It  is  conceded  that  the  Imperial  Government  has  not  encouraged  the 
emigration  of  its  people  from  China  to  the  United  States,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  in  the  negotiations  between  the  countries  on  the  subject  it 
has,  in  the  most  friendly  manner,  yielded  to  the  suspension  of  emigra- 
tion, and  more  friendly  treatment  was  anticipated,  therefore,  than  has 
been  manifested  by  Congress  in  the  enactment  of  laws  prohibiting  the 
coming  of  Chinese  into  the  United  States. 

It  was  admitted  in  the  debate  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  tliat 
the  passage  of  the  Scott  law  in  1888  was  a  violation  of  the  treaty 
stipulations  between  the  two  countries,  and  also  that  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  May  5,  1892，  was  a  second  aud  more  aggravated  violation  of 
the  same. 

For  a  proper  characterization  of  the  legislation  by  eminent  statesmen 
you  are  respectfully  referred  to  the  debates  found  in  the  Congressional 
Record,  first  session.  From  these  debates  it  will  be  seen  that  some  of 
the  most  prominent  members  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Re- 
lations doubted  the  necessity  of  any  legislation  whatever  in  the  last 
session  of  Congress  and  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  1888  were  extended  to  1894. 

I  will  also  add  that  it  was  disclosed  by  these  debates  that  the  census 
shows  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  Chinese  in  the  State  of  California 
and  in  the  United  States,  and  there  was,  therefore,  no  actual  reason  or 
necessity  for  the  passage  of  a  law  containing  additional  precautions  and 
restraints  against  the  coming  of  my  countrymen  into  the  United  States. 

I  might  with  propriety  protract  this  communication  by  placing  before 
you  in  detail  the  numerous  hardships  that  will  be  entailed  upon  my 
people  iu  the  United  States  if  the  law  is  allowed  to  remain  unchanged 
and  if  the  rules  and  regulations  prescribed  by  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment are  sustained  and  enforced  ；  but  these  matters  are  apparent,  aud 
will  be  fully  understood  by  a  casual  reference  to  them. 

The  provisions  of  the  act  of  May  5，  1892,  I  am  informed,  contravene 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ；  it  is  admitted  they  violate  the 
treaties  between  China  and  the  United  States.  Grave  questions  as  to 
the  constitutionality  of  the  act  will  arise,  therefore,  for  consideration, 
but  inasmuch  as  these  are  questions  to  be  presented  to  another  and 
coordinate  branch  of  your  Governmeut  I  shall  not  discuss  them  in  this 
coinniuDication,  and  this  reference  is  made  to  the  subject  for  the  pur- 
pose of  leading  up  to  the  presentation  of  au  important  departure  iu  the 
legislation  of  the  Congress  of  tlie  United  States.  This  departure  is 
found  in  section  6  of  the  act.  The  crime  defined  in  this  section  and 
tlx-  [)unishment  prescribed  are  plainly  ex  post  facto^  notwithstanding 
tli,'  law  lias  been  ingeniously  lVamed  with  the  intention  of  avoiding  its 
repugnance  to  the  Constitution.  But  I  desire  to  direct  attention  more 
csp(M-ially  to  the  fact  that  the  Congress  has  prescribed  as  a  punishment 
lor  tli<'  lioncoinpliaiKM'  witii  thv  law  what  is  equivalent  to  banishment 
IVoin  tii(，  United  States;  and  1  wisli  to  ('"""msize  the  fact  that  tiiis 
piiiiisliniont  is  applicable  only  to  my  countrymen.  It  was  surprising 
to  tlie  Ini])crial  (Tovci  nineiit  to  find  (Mi^ral'ted  in  the  law  of  the  United 
St;iic>  ； m.v  sucli  |)cn;ilty,  <'s))ccially  so  when  it  h;\s  l)e('n  proclaimed 
t lnoii^liout  the  woi  Id  r.')r  o\  rr  one  lmndi c<l  yoars  tliat  the  United 
St .!((••■>  was  ； in  asylum  ior  tli,'  pcojtlc  of  ； ill  the  nations  of  the  earth. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


35 


In  ray  surprise,  I  uaturally  exclaim,  is  this  a  step  backward  from  prog- 
ress, civilization,  freedom,  and  liberty ?  I  can  not  find  words  to  ex- 
press my  regret  or  the  regret  of  the  Imperial  Government  at  the  en- 
actment of  such  a  law ;  which  is  applied  solely  and  personally  to  the 
Ohiuese,  a  large  majority  of  whom  are  unquestionably  lawfully  within 
the  United  States,  engaged  iu  the  legitimate  pursuits  of  life  and  en- 
titled to  the  protection  of  the  Constitution  and  laws,  instead  of  the 
imposition  of  such  pimishment  as  it  is  attempted  to  inflict  upon  them 
by  tlie  last  CoDgress;  and  the  vsurprise  must  be  greatly  enhanced 
wlien  it  is  considered  that  such  obnoxious  aud  imeiilightened  punisb- 
ment  is  an  iinwelcome  salute  from  one  friendly  and  favored  nation  to 
au other,  wLich  has  at  all  times  and  uucler  all  circunistances  made 
amity,  honesty  of  intentions  and  purposes,  and  the  sacred  ]>rest»r va tion 
of  its  treaty  stipulations  the  chief  object  iu  its  relations  with  the  United 
States  Government,  For  these  reasons,  and  others  heretofore  adduced, 
the  statute  of  1802  is  a  violation  of  every  principle  of  justice,  equity, 
reason,  and  fair  dealing  between  two  friendly  powers,  aud  its  entbrce- 
ment  should  not  only  be  arrested,  but  tbe  law  itself  should  be  sum- 
marily repealed  or  so  altered  as  to  assure  my  countrymen  of  the  full 
protection  of  their  rights  and  immunities,  in  the  same  measure  that 
these  privileges  are  secured  to  the  people  of  other  favored  nations  who 
are  in  any  maimer  residing  within  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States. 

Id  accordance  with  what  has  already  been  stated,  I  would  most  re- 
spectfully suggest  that  the  two  nations  might  be  relieved  of  the  pend- 
ing ombarassments  which  are  the  immediate  result  of  tbe  legislation 
so  frequently  referred  to  in  this  note  by  a  repeal  of  the  objectionable 
provisions  of  the  act  of  May  5, 1892,  or  such  alteration  of  the  same  as 
、vil】  protect  my  coiiutrymeu  in  their  vested  personal  and  property  rights 
in  the  United  States,  so  that  they  may  coutinue  to  remain  in  said 
country  free  from  the  threatened  difficulties,  wrongs,  aiul  the  depriva- 
tion of  such  rights  and  privileges. 

In  consideration,  therefore,  of  tbe  past  friendship  between  the  respec- 
tive nations  and  in  the  hope  of  preserving  the  same  and  uniting  tbeui 
more  firmly  therein,  I  again  communicate  to  you  the  respectful  request 
of  the  Imperial  Government  tliat  the  matters  wliich  form  the  basis  of 
this  and  my  former  notes  niay  receive  your  early  attention,  and  tliat 
the  views  and  intentions  of  your  Government  may  be  elicited  and  uiiidc 
known  to  me  in  an  "ample  and  formal  maimer." 
I  again  renew,  etc., 

Tsui  Kwo  Yo. 


Ko.  16. 

Mr.  Tsui  to  Mr.  Foster. 

Chinese  Legation, 
Washiinjton,  Nov.  11,  1892.    (Received  November  12.) 
Sm :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  for  your  consideration, 
and  for  the  consideration  of  his  excellency  the  President  of  tlie  United 
States,  a  communication  of  the  foreign  office  at  Peking,  and  addressed 
to  Hon.  Charles  Den  by,  United  States  minister,  in  reply  to  a  note  from 
him  dated  July  4,  1892,  inclosing  for  the  information  of  the  Imperial 
Government  a  co])y  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  May  5,  1892.  and 
former  acts,  inoliibiting-  tlie  coming  of  the  Chiuese  into  tlie  Uuited 
S.  Ex.  2 —— 33 


36 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


States  ；  also  a  translation  into  the  Chinese  language  of  the  circular 
letter  issued  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  the  collectors  of  cus- 
toms in  the  United  States. 

The  drastic  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  May  last  are  reviewed 
by  the  foreign  office  in  this  note  to  Minister  Denby  and  accompanied 
with  the  request  that  such  provisions  maybe  explained  and  construed, 
especially  in  the  many  particulars  referred  to  therein. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Minister  Denby  is  also  requested  to  lay  the 
matter  mentioued  in  the  note  before  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
with  a  prayer  that  his  excellency  will  cause  the  late  act  to  be  recon- 
sidered by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  to  1;he  end  that  due  re- 
gard may  be  paid  to  the  law  of  nations  and  to  the  friendly  intercourse 
between  China  aud  the  United  States. 

I  most  respectfully  ask  your  careful  consideration  of  the  commuui- 
cation  inclosed,  and  request  that  an  answer  may  be  made  to  all  tlie 
inquiries  presented  by  tlie  foreign  office.  And  I  hope  I  may  be  par- 
doned for  asking  for  a  response  to  my  note  of  recent  date,  as  well  as  to 
the  former  notes  of  myself  and  my  predecessor. 
Accept,  etc" 

Tsui  Kwo  Yin. 


[Inclosure.] 

Iranslation  of  reply  of  foreign  office  in  Peking  to  Mr.  Denby,  the  United  States  minister. 

Sir:  We  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note,  dated  July  4, 
1892，  informing  us  of  your  having  received  from  your  Government  copy  of  a  new  act 
prohibiting  the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers  into  the  United  States,  and  transmitting 
for  our  information  a  Chinese  translation  of  the  circular  letter  issued  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  tlie  Treasury  to  the  collectors  of  customs  in  the  United  States,  accompanied 
by  the  original  in  English,  which  contains  (1)  the  new  act  of  May  5，  1892;  (2)  the 
act  of  May  6, 1882;  (3)  the  amendatory  act  of  July  5, 1884，  and  (4)  the  act  of  October 
1，  1888. 

Legislative  measures  restricting  the  immigration  of  Chinese  laborers  into  the 
United  States  received  tlieir  first  sanction  from  the  treaty  concluded  between  China 
and  the  United  States  on  the  17th  of  November,  1880.  Subsequently  an  act  was 
passed  by  your  Congress  in  1882  restricting  and  limiting  the  immigration  of  Chinese 
laborers/ tlie  provisions  of  which  are  very  strict  and  oppressive.  In  1884  your  legis- 
lators passed  an  act  amendatory  to  the  act  of  1882,  exercising  their  power  and  using 
their  discretion  to  the  fullest  extent  ；  still  they  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  openly  violate 
treaty  stipulations.  But  at  last,  on  October  1，  1888,  an  act  was  passed  regardless  of 
the  firm  and  cordial  friendship  between  the  two  countries  which  had  existed  for 
decades  of  years. 

We  and  our  ministers  at  Washington  have  repeatedly  sent  in  our  protests  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  treaty  stipulations,  but  iiave  received  no  reply  from  you  or  the 
State  Department.  Furthermore,  a  new  act,  consisting  of  nine  sections,  was  passed 
and  approved  May  5  last,  continuing  the  provisions  of  tho  amendatory  act  of  1884 
for  a  period  of  ten  years  from  its  passage.  This  being  the  case,  we  have  no  alterna- 
tive but  to  call  your  attention  to  the  following  objections :  Section  2  of  the  new  act 
says:  "That  any  Chinese  person  or  person  of  Chinese  descent,  when  convicted  and 
； Kljud^fMl  under  any  of  said  laws  to  be  not  lawfully  entitled  to  be  or  remain  in  tlie 
United  States,  shall  be  removed  from  the  United  States  to  China,  unless  bo  or  they 
shall  make  it  appear  to  the  justice,  judge,  or  commissioner  before  whom  he  or  they 
are  tried  that  be  or  they  are  subjects  or  citizens  of  some  other  country,  in  which 
cas (；  he  or  they  shall  bo  removed  from  the  United  States  to  such  country :  Provided, 
Tli at  in  ;my  cane  、vh<'r",  ,such  other  country  of  which  such  Chinese  person  shall  claim 
to  be  a  citizen  or  subject  shall  doinand  any  tax  as  a  condition  of  the  removal  of  such 
person  to  that  country,  be  or  she  shall  be  removed  to  China."  Docs  the  clause  "'Chi- 
！ i'' 、（-  |>' '卜 （'ii  ''I  |m  ixiii  i>\  ( 'lii !m  >c  (lcsccjit iiH'iitioiKMl  in  t  his  w'rlioii  ap])]y  only  to 
( 'hincsr  ];i  l)orcis  residing  in  tlie  United  States,  or  to  the  exempt  class  also,  such  as 
tcncliciH,  iidcutH,  tik  i clianls,  or  jicrHons  visiting  the  United  States  from  curiosity ？ 
"W"  should  l»c         to  h;i\ c  some  explanation  regarding  it. 

Article  2  of  the,  tn-:ity  of  Novcml)or  17,  1880,  provides  that'  a Chinese  subjects, 
whether  proceeding  to  tlio  Uuitod  States  as  teachers,  students,  or  merchants,  or  from 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


37 


curiosity,  together  with  their  body  ar.d  household  servants,  and  Chinese  laborers 
who  are  now  in  the  United  States,  shall  be  allowed,  to  go  and  come  of  their  own  free 
will  and  accord,  and  shall  be  accorded  all  the  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and 
exemptions  which  are  accorded  to  the  citizens  aud  subjects  of  the  most  favored  na- 
tion." 

Section  3  of  the  amendatory  act  of  1884  provides  "that  the  two  foregoing  sections 
shall  not  apply  to  Chinese  laborers  who  were  in  the  United  States  on  the  17th  day  of 
November,  1880，  or  who  shall  have  come  into  the  same  before  tlie  expiration  of  ninety- 
days  next  after  the  passage  of  the  act  to  which  this  act  is  amendatory. "  Thus  it  is 
clear  that  the  first  two  sections  of  the  said  act  can,  under  no  circumstances,  be  ap- 
plicable to  Chinese  merchants  and  others  who  belong  to  the  exempt  class.  Now,  the 
new  act  of  May  5  last  refers  generally  to  Chinese  persons  without  classifying  them. 
Does  the  clause  "  to  be  or  remain  in  the  United  States"  mean  that  it  is  a  law  made 
and  agreed  to  by  "both  the  nations,  by  which  a  Chinese  person  is  to  be  adjudged 
lawfully  or  unlawfully  to  be  or  remain  in  the  United  States f 

Section  3  of  the  new  act  says :  "  That  any  Chinese  person  or  person  of  Chinese  de- 
scent arrested  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  or  the  nets  hereby  extended  shall 
be  adjudged  to  be  uulawfiilly  within  the  United  States,  unless  such  person  shall  es- 
tablish by  affirmative  proof,  to  the  satisfaction  of  sucli  justice,  judge,  or  commis- 
sioner, his  lawful  right  to  remain  in  the  United  States." 

We  hold  that  by  the  Bmiingame  treaty  of  1868  the  right  of  Chinese  laborers  to 
emigrate  to  the  United  States  is  secured  and  provided  for;  also  by  articles  2  and  3 
of  the  treaty  of  1880.  What  more  affirmative  proof  can  your  Government  ask  for? 
Now,  this  arbitrary  assumption  of  power  by  your  Governmeut  in  causing  the  arrest 
and  punishment  of  Chinese  subjects  without  regard  to  the  binding  force  of  treaty 
stipulations  appears  to  be  in  direct  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

Section  4  of  the  same  act  provides  for  the  punishment  of  Chinese  persons,  when 
convicted  of  being  unlawfully  in  the  United  States,  with  imprisonment  at  hard 
labor.  Let  us  ask  whether  the  subjects  of  other  nations  wlio  are  laborers  in  the 
United  States  receive  the  same  treatment.  How  can  you  reconcile  your  Govern- 
ment's action  iu  the  matter  with  that  clause  in  the  treaty  which  provides  that  to 
Chinese  subjects,  shall  be  accorded  the  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and  exemp- 
tions which  are  accorded  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation? 

Section  5  of  the  same  act  has  the  following  provision :  "That  after  the  passage  of 
this  act,  on  an  application  to  any  judge  or  court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  first 
instance,  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  by  a  Chinese  person  seeking  to  land  in  the 
United  States,  to  whom  that  privilege  has  been  denied,  no  bail  shall  be  allowed, 
and  such  application  shall  be  heard  and  determined  promptly  without  unnecessary 
delay."  According  to  the  practice  of  your  courts,  defendants  in  bailable  cases, 
though  they  are  subjects  of  other  nations,  are  entitled  to  the  privilege  of  being  re- 
leased ou  bail.  If  Chinese  subjects  are  refused  bail,  where  siiall  they  be  lodged  ？ 
In  ordinary  proceedings  it  is  impossible  for  any  judge  to  take  np  and  hear  a  case  as 
soon  as  it  is  brought  before  him  and  determine  it  promptly.  It  is  therefore  hoped 
that  the  privilege  of  being  allowed  to  give  bail  hitherto  enjoyed  by  the  Chinese  sub- 
jects may  be  coutinued. 

Section  6  of  the  said  act  provides :  "  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  all  Chinese  labor- 
ers within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act,  and 
who  are  entitled  to  remain  in  the  United  States,  to  apply  to  the  collector  of  internal 
revenue  of  their  respective  districts,  within  one  year  after  the  passage  of  this  act, 
for  a  certificate  of  residence,  and  any  Chinese  laborer  within  the  limits  of  the 
United  States  who  shall  neglect,  fail,  or  refuse  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  or  who,  after  one  year  from  the  passage  hereof,  shall  be  found  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Uuitecl  States  without  such  certificate  of  residence,  shall  be 
deemed  and  adjudged  to  be  unlawfully  within  the  United  States,  and  may  be  arrested 
by  any  customs  official,  collector  of  internal  revenue  or  his  deputies,  Uuitecl  States 
marshal  or  his  deputies,  and  taken  before  a  United  States  judge,  whose  duty  it  shall 
be  to  order  that  be  be  deported  from  the  United  States  as  hereinbefore  provided, 
unless  he  shall  establish  clearly  to  the  satisfaction  of  said  judge  that,  by  reason  of 
accident,  sickness,  or  other  unavoidable  cause,  lie  has  been  unable  to  procure  his 
certificate,  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court,  and  by  at  least  one  credible  white 
witness,  that  he  was  a  resident  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
this  act  ；  and,  if  upon  the  hearing  it  shall  appear  that  he  is  so  entitled  to  a  certificate, 
it  shall  be  granted  upon  his  paying  the  cost.  Should  it  appear  that  said  Chinaman 
had  procured  a  certificate,  which  has  been  lost  or  destroyed,  he  shall  be  detained  and 
judgment  suspended  a  reasonable  time  to  enable  him  to  procure  a  duplicate  from 
the  officer  granting  it,  and  iu  such  cases  the  cost  of  said  arrest  and  trial  shall  be  in 
the  discretion  of  the  court.  And  any  Chinese  person  other  than  a  Chinese  laborer 
having  a  right  to  be  and  remain  in  the  United  States,  desiring  such  certificate  as 
evidence  of  such  right,  may  apply  lor  and  receive  the  same  without  charge. " 


38 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


On  inquiry,  we  find  that  Cliinese  laborers  are  scattered  over  the  United  States. 
They  are  to  be  found  in  cities  where  uo  Cliinese  consulate  has  been  establislied  to 
look  after  tlic^r  interests.  Most  of  thein  can  not  understand  and  speak  the  Ejiglish 
language.  If  tbey  are  fO]n]>oll<Ml  to  ap])ly  for  a  certificate  of  residence  within  a 
year  from  the  passngt'  of  the  act  :"ul  are  liable  to  arrest  and  punishment  in  case  of 
their  failure  to  coni]»ly  、vith  tlu-  】：iw'，  Chinese  residents  in  the  United  States  will 
oertaiiily  suffer  uucalled-iov  misery  and  hardships:  but  the  local  authorities 
likewise  find  the  work  of  carryins;  out  the 】aw  quite  burdensome.  The  above  re- 
quirciiHMit  is  in  contraventioii  of  tho  spirit  of  the  treaty  of  1868. 

Sections  7，  8,  and  11  define  the  duties  of  the  officials  of  the  Treasury  Department, 
■who  are  charged  with  1be  execuliou  of  the  act,  winch  seem  to  differ  greatly  from 
the  requirements  of  tlie  amendatory  act  of  July  5,  1884. 

Having  carefully  studied  the  provisions  of  the  treaties  existing  between  the  two 
countries  and  tlie  uii(lerstai)(liii<>-  r (； ached  in  the  determination  of  past  cases,  and 
compared  the  same  with  the  nine  sections  of  the  new  act,  we  deem  it  our  duty  to 
request  yon  to  lay  the.  matter  "before  tlie  President  of  tlie  United  States  for  his  con- 
sideration, with  a  prayer  that  Ills  excellency  will  cause  the  new  act  to  1"、  reconsid- 
ered hy  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  to  tlie  end  that  due  regard  may  be  paid  to 
tlie  law  of  nations  and  to  the  friendly  intercourse  between  tlie  two  countries. 

Shortly  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  July  5，  1884，  the  President  of  the  Ignited 
States,  in  his  message  to  Congress  of  ； December  1,  1884,  observed  that  it  was  neces- 
sary iov  tliat  august  body  to  expound  the  exact  sense  and  meaning  of  the  words  em- 
ployed in  tlie  treaty  in  relation  to  the  restriction  of  the  Chinese  immigTation  to  the 
T'nited  States,  and  that,  as  Le  coiKsidered  the  amendatory  act  passed  by  C'un^re.ss  was 
in  contrav(Mition  of  treaty  stipulations,  he  considered  it  proper  to  ask  Congress  to 
care  fully  review  it  and  modify  some  of  its  provisions.  Thus  it  is  evident  that,  if 
C<mgr''、s  ]»;isses  a  hill  in  violation  of  any  treaty  stipulation,  the  President  of  the 
United  States  has  the  power  to  ask  that  body  to  reconsider  its  action.  Now,  most  of 
the  nine  sections  of  the  new  act  which  continue  in  force  the  laws  of  1882  and  1884 
； ire  undoubtedly  iu  conflict  with  treaty  stipulations  and  affect  Chinese  diplomatic 
offi<ers  also.  It  will  be  reineiuliered  in  the  year  1886  an  unpleasant  incident  took 
place,  which  was  occasioned  hy  the  collector  of  customs  at  San  Frnncisro  demnnd- 
in«r  the  prodnctiou  by  the  minister  of  his  credentials  upon  his  arrival  before  lie  was 
pcrinitted  to  laud.  Such  action  reflects  on  tlie  honor  of  your  nation  and  is  (h'ti'i- 
】ne!":il  to  the  friendly  relations  between  the  two  countries.  We  sincerely  hope  that 
your  i^overmiieiit.  guided  l)y  a  sonse-of  justice  and  equity,  will  discontinue  its  policy 
of  discrimination  against  China  and  its  ill  treatment  of  Chinese  subjects. 

We  nwait  tlie  favor  of  a  reply. 
Accept,  sir,  etc. 


Ko.  17. 

Mr.  Denby  to  Mr.  Foster. 

No.  1607.]  Legation  of  the  CTnited  States, 

Pelcing,  Xor ember  ^.9, 翅:、 >. (Hcu'eived  Jniniiu  y  14,  1893.) 
Sir:  In  my  dispatch,  No.  】r)69，  of  the  18th  of  August  last.  I  trans- 
niitrcd  a  copy  of  a  traiislation  of  a  coiiiniuiiicHtioii  received  hy  me  trom 
the  foreign  office,  relating  to  the  recent  exclusion  acts  of  tlie  United 
States  ； I  gainst  (Miiuese  laborers,  together  with  a  copy  of  my  reply 

tll(M  ('tO. 

I  now  inclosi^  ； i  1r;uisl;ition  oi'  anotliei-  coimiuinicatioi)  from  the  yamon 
on  the  same  subject.  The  yaineii  states  th;it  several  niouths  liave 
elnpscd  and  it  lias  lcccivcd  no  intimntion  tVoin 】h"  wlictlHT  I  liuve  or 
have  not  received  a  reply  from  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State.  The 
yMiiK-n  j)K>cc('(ls  to  stnt c  tliat  ^  lias  received  lVom  i  'liinosc  in  t\w 
【Jiiih'<l  States  !'iv(|U('iit  rciiionstijuices  a^ninst  t\w  m"v  l;nv,  and  tluit 
； ii  rcsts  m"l,'r  it  lia\  r  l"'('n  iikkIc  in  New  Voi  k.  This  lattci1  statcincnt. 
】 tliiiik.  <';m  ii(»t  he  trm',  ； is  the  law  luis  one  yoar  to  run  trom  May  (>； 
1  MIL',  Ix-I'oi  <•  piosrcnt  ions  cjui  Ix^in. 

Tl"'  \  aiin'  n  t  hen  ； u  tiles  ；"  considcrnhle  len^tli  tliat  the  now  law  vio- 
lates tlie  treaty  of  1 880.    It  cites  Hie    lavored  nation"  clause  in  that 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


39 


treaty  and  the  third  article  thereof,  and  claims  that,  as  the  matter  of 
certificates  under  the  new  act  does  not  apply  to  the  citizens  of  other 
countries,  it  should  not  apply  to  Chinese  subjects. 

I  endeavored  in  my  communicatiou  to  the  yainen  of  August  18，  1892, 
to  sliow  that  the  new  law  was  not  in  contravention  of  the  treaty  of 
1880,  so  far  as  it  related  to  Chinese  laborers  ayIio  have  gone  to  the 
United  States  since  the  treaty  of  1880，  because  such  persons  had  gone 
thither  in  violation  of  the  acts  of  1882  and  1884.  But  the  yarnen  makes 
no  distinction  between  Chinese  laborers  who  were  in  the  United  States 
at  the  date  of  the  treaty  and  those  who  liave  since  unlawfully  gone  to 
the  United  States.  The  yaraen  then  points  out  the  difference  between 
the  system  of  certificates  and  the  passport  and  travel-certificate  system 
prevailing  in  China,  and  claims  that  the  two  systems  are  not  at  all  alike. 

The  yamen  proceeds  to  speak  kindly  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  and  of  myself,  and  expresses  the  hope  that  ym\  will  request  Con- 
gress to  abrogate  the  new  law.  It  concludes  with  the  statement  that 
it  has  addressed  the  governor  of  the  Liang  Kuang  (the  two  southern 
provinces)  to  ascertain  the  views  of  the  Chinese  merchants  of  Canton 
and  Hongkong,  and,  on  a  report  liavhig  been  received,  the  question  of 
making  new  rules  for  the  future  will  be  considered. 

I  have  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  this  communicatiou,  and  have 
informed  the  j^ameu  that  I  have  not  received  any  specific  instructions 
on  the  subject  under  discussion. 
I  have,  etc., 

Charles  Denby. 


[Inclosure  in  ； No.  1607. ― Translation.] 
The  Tsu、"j  U  Yamen  to  Mr.  Denby. 

No.  17.]  November  24，  1892. 

Upon  the  18th  of  August,  1892,  tlie  prince  and  ministers  had  the  honor  to  receive 
a  corumuuication  from  the  minister  of  the  United  States,  in  reply  to  the  j-anien's 
dispatch  relative  to  the  exclusion  acts  of  the  United  States  against  Chinese  labor- 
ers, wherein  the  minister  of  the  United  States  was  requested  to  bring  the  attention 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  unjust  manner  in  which  Chinese  sub- 
jects h:ive  becu  treated.  The  minister  of  the  United  States  stated  that  it  would 
afford  liini  great  pleasure  to  send  to  the  Department  of  State  a  trauslatiou  of  the 
prince  and  ministers'  coinmuuication,  and,  after  having-  received  instructions,  lie 
would  communicate  with  the  yamen  further  upon  the  subject. 

The  yamen  have  duly  perused  the  contents  of  the  minister's  coLamunicatiou,  which, 
contains  in  substance  the  provisions  of  the  supplemental  treaty  and  also  gives  a  re- 
view of  the  nine  articles  of  the  new  act  of  May  5,  1892,  which  are  in  accordance  with 
treaty  stipulations.  The  minister  of  the  United  States  further  observes  that  if  the 
treaty  of  1888  had  been  approved  by  the  Government  of  China,  the  questions  now 
mooted  would  not  have  arisen,  and  the  danger  of  the  policy  adopted  was  pointed 
out  by  him  at  the  time. 

Several  months  have  elapsed,  but  the  prince  and  ministers  have  received,  no  inti- 
mation from  the  minister  of  the  United  States  whether  he  lias  or  lias  not  received  a 
reply  from  the  liotiorable  Secretary  of  State.  Frequent  representations  liave  been 
made  by  Chinese  resident  in  America  that  the  rule  under  the  new  law  in  regard  to 
getting  certificates  is  oppressive.  In  New  York  the  police  have  arrested  at  their 
pleasure  Chinese  who  have  not  obtained  certificates.  The  Chinese  minister  to  tlie 
United  States  lias  laid  the  matter  before  tlie  yam^n  by  note,  and  the  yamen  ruus 
lose  no  time  in  devising  a  plan  of  action. 

With  reference  to  the  limitation  of  Chinese  laborers,  there  is  a  special  treaty  gov- 
erning the  question.  The  minister  of  the  United  States  states  that  laborers  of  other 
countries  are  not  liable  to  such  punishment,  which  may  be  true,  but  the  United 
States  have  no  treaty  similar  to  the  treaty  of  1880  with  any  other  power. 

The  yaruen  would  observe  that  wheu  the  supplemental  treaty  of  1880  was  negoti- 


40 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


ated,  the  commissioners  appointed  by  China  to  negotiate  the  same  inquired  of  the 
United  States  commissioners  that,  on  the  framing  of  the  treaty,  whether  the  United 
States  would  or  would  not  impose  or  inflict  oppressive  measures  on  the  Chinese  labor- 
ers, and,  after  the  return  to  the  United  States  of  the  American  commissioners,  this 
statement  of  the  Chinese  commissioners  appeared  in  the  foreign  relations  of  Con- 
gress. (？)  This  treaty  was  concluded  in  an  amiable  and  peaceful  spirit,  and  the  two 
Govermnents  concerned  were  animated  by  the  desire  of  pursuing  perpetual  friendly 
relations. 

The  second  article  of  the  treaty  reads  as  follows  : 

"Chinese  subjects,  whether  proceeding  to  the  United  States  as  teachers,  students, 
merchants,  or  from  curiosity,  together  with  their  body  and  household  servants,  and 
Chinese  laborers  who  are  now  in  the  United  States,  shall  be  allowed  to  go  and  come 
of  their  own  free  will  and  accord,  and  shall  be  accorded  all  the  rights,  privileges, 
immunities  and  exemptions  which  are  accorded  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the 
most  favored  nation." 

If  the  statement  of  the  minister  of  the  United  States,  u  that  laborers  of  other 
countries  are  not  liable  to  such,  punishment,"  is  to  be  taken,  then  was  not  the  ex- 
pression in  the  treaty  of  1880，  "  accorded  all  the  rights,  etc.,  which  are  accorded  to 
the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation,"  an  empty  and  vacant  inser- 
tion ？  If  the  two  countries,  China  and  the  United  States,  are  only  and  specially  to 
be  considered,  what  was  the  use  of  inserting  the  favored-nation  clause? 

The  third  article  of  the  supplemental  treaty  reads : 

"If  Chinese  laborers,  or  Chinese  of  any  other  class,  now  either  permanently  or 
temporarily  residing  in  the  territory  of  the  United  States  meet  with,  ill  treatment  at 
the  hands  of  any  other  persons,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  exert  all 
its  power  to  devise  measures  for  their  protection  and  to  secure  to  them  the  same 
rights,  privileges,  immunities  and  exemptions  as  may  be  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  and 
subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation  and  to  whicli  they  are  entitled  by  treaty." 

Here  is  a  repetition  in  this  clause  that  Chinese  [subjects]  shall  receive  the  same 
treatment  as  those  of  the  most  favored  nation.  As  the  rules  of  action  in  the  niatter 
of  certificates  under  the  new  act  can  not  apply  to  other  countries,  then  they  can  not 
ipply  to  Chinese  subjects. 

The  minister  of  the  United  States  takes  the  supplemental  treaty  between  the 
United  States  and  China,  of  1880，  and  cites  that  as  the  authority  vrhj  the  Chinese 
laborer  only  should  receive  such  harsh  and  unfair  treatment.  It  seems  this  was  not 
formerly  the  intent  when  the  treaty  was  framed,  neither  is  it  in  accordance  with  the 
wording  thereof. 

The  minister  of  the  United  States  further  remarks  that  "it  [a  certificate]  is  some- 
thing like  the  passport  and  travel- certificate  system  prevailing  in  China."  This 
view  the  yamen  really  do  not  understand.  With  regard  to  foreigners  resident  in 
China  applying  for  passports,  these  documents  are  either  applied  for  by  the  foreign 
minister  or  consul,  by  an  official  communication  (to  Chinese  authorities),  and  each 
receives  the  same  treatment.  The  police  authorities  have  never  compelled  persons 
to  take  out  passports,  nor  is  there  any  such  thing  as  punishment  by  imprisonment. 
Further,  the  object  and  purpose  of  foreigners  getting  passports  are  specially  for 
traveling  in  the  interior.  At  the  treaty  ports,  however,  foreigners  may  go  and 
come  at  their  pleasure  without  these  documents. 

Generally  speaking,  there  is  no  nation  that  is  pleased  with  having  the  name  of 
violating  treaty  stipulations.  Every  confidence  has  long  been  reposed  in  the  sin- 
cerity of  purpose,  integrity,  and  high  standing  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  it  has  always  evinced  the  staunchest  feeling  of  friendship  toward  China. 
The  minister  of  the  United  States  has  resided  in  China  many  years,  aud  the  relations 
between  him  and  the  yamon  liave  always  been  above  suspicion  ；  but  at  present  the 
Chinese  residents  in  the  United  ！ StateH  are  molested  aud  persecuted  to  an  unsurpassed 
extent,  and  the  yamon  l")p''s  that  tlic  minister  of  the  United  States  will  address  and 
urge  the  Secretary  of  State  to  bring  the  matter  before  Congress  to  have  abrogated 
the  new  law  of  1892  regarding  the  issuance  of  certificates,  thus  maintaining  and 
preserving  the  friendly  relations  between  the  two  nations,  which  is  the  earnest  de- 
sire of  the  yamen. 

As  to  what  rules  may  be  arranged  for  the  future,  the  yamen  liave  addressed  the 
governor-general  of  the  Liau<r-Kuaiig,  to  ascertain  the  views  of  the  Chinese  mer- 
chants of  Canton  and  Hongkong,  aud,  on  a  report  having  been  received,  the  question 
will  then  be  considered. 

A  necessary  communication,  eto. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


41 


No.  18. 

Mr.  Wharton  to  Mr.  Tsui. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  December  W,  1892. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of  your  two 
notes  of  the  respective  dates  of  November  7  and  November  11，  1892， 
concerning  the  recent  legislation  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
"in  respect  to  Chinese  subjects"  in  this  country. 

In  the  former  of  these  two  notes  you  refer  to  certain  unanswered 
notes  of  your  predecessor  and  of  yourself  as  containing  a  full  discussion 
of  the  provision  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  October  1，  1888.  That 
statute  was  brought  about  by  the  regrettable  failure  to  complete  the 
treaty  signed  at  Washington  March  12,  1888.  It  does  not  seem  neces- 
sary at  this  late  date  to  discuss  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
treaty  of  1888  failed,  or  to  conjecture  whether,  had  it  been  duly  per- 
fected, it  would  have  served  to  avert  the  difficulties  or  meet  the  issues 
which  have  since  arisen.  That  the  failure  of  that  treaty,  through  the 
witliholdment  of  the  Imperial  ratification,  exerted  a  prejudicial  influ- 
ence upon  American  sentiment  thereafter  is  hardly  open  to  doubt. 

Neither  does  it  seem  necessary  to  the  present  object  to  enter  into  a 
fall  historical  and  analytical  review  of  the  variant  conditions  which 
have  existed  in  the  United  States  and  China  since  the  first  treaties 
were  signed  in  regard  to  tlie  treatment  of  aliens.  It  would  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  show  that  from  the  outset  the  position  of  the  foreigner  in  China 
has  been  one  of  violation  and  exclusion,  his  rights  being  limited  under 
treaties  to  certain  specified  objects  within  the  narrow  limits  of  the 
treaty  ports,  and  extended  only  at  tlie  will  of  the  Chinese  Government 
to  residence  and  travel  in  the  interior.  The  foreign  states,  by  their 
compacts  with  China,  have  impliedly  recognized  the  inherent  riglit  of 
that  Empire  to  regulate  the  domicile  and  business  of  aliens  withiu  its 
borders,  by  soliciting  and  obtaining  from  China  tlie  limited  privileges 
expressed  by  the  formal  treaties  and  the  expanded  privileges  growing 
out  of  them.  Nor  would  it  be  difficult  to  argue  with  convincing  force 
that  tlie  application  of  this  right  by  China  is  governed  in  its  manifesta- 
tions by  the  inherent  imniiscibility  of  tlie  Mongolian  aud  Caucasian 
races.  As  are  all  Europeans  to  the  native  Chinese  communities,  so  are 
the  Chinese  to  the  communities  of  European  blood ― a  people  apart,  not 
willing  to  be  engrafted  upon  the  national  life,  and  dwelling  under  tlie 
special  license  of  an  artificially  created  necessity. 

You  and  your  predecessors  have  pointed  to  the  exclusive  and 
repressive  treatment  of  Chinese  iu  tlie  United  States  and  to  tlie  acts 
of  lawlessness  from  which  they  have  suffered.  It  would  be  easy  to 
offset  this  phase  of  the  argument  by  a  recital '  of  the  multiplied 
instances  wherein  citizens  of  tlie  United  States  peaceably  dwelling  or 
traveling  in  China  have  been  tlie  victims  of  mob  violence  and  of  vex- 
atious aggression  on  the  part  of  the  local  authorities  ；  but  I  fail  to  see 
the  good  to  flow  from  such  a  line  of  discussion,  since  the  Governments 
of  China  and  the  United  States  have  been  alike  sincere  in  their  expres- 
sion of  abhorrence  for  such  acts,  and  practical  in  their  disposition  to 
proffer  suitable  amends.  To  pile  up  past  causes  of  grievance  on  either 
side  would  but  embitter  tlie  temperate  examination  of  present  prob- 
lems, which  I  am  sure  it  is  the  wish  of  your  Government,  no  less  than 
of  my  own,  to  give  to  the  subject. 

Reserving,  therefore,  all  considerations  of  these  aspects  of  the  general 


42 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


question,  I  confine  this  communication  to  the  precise  points  you  make 
touching  the  recent  legislation  of  Congress  renewing  the  acts  passed 
for  the  execution  of  tlie  treaty  of  1880.  Those  acts  being  limited  in 
their  effects  to  a  lixed  term  of  years,  which,  in  the  judgment  of  Congress, 
came  to  an  end  in  May  last,  it  became  necessary  to  reenact  tliein  for 
a  further  term,  with  such  safeguards  as  experience  should  have  shown 
to  be  needful.  While  more  precisely  providing  for  tlie  exclusion  of 
uew-coming  Chinese  laborers  from  our  shores,  in  pursuance  of  a  policy 
in  regard  to  which  tlie  negotiations  of  immediately  preceding  years 
had  shown  the  two  Governments  to  be  in  substantial  accord,  the  new 
legislation  aimed  to  meet  the  case  of  the  Chinese  subjects  actually  re- 
siding and  laboring  in  tlie  United  States  by  providing  the  means 
wliereby  their  right  to  remain  and  enjoy  the  privileges  of  residence 
stipulated  in  the  existing  treaties  should  be  confirmed  to  tliem  by  an 
orderly  scheme  of  individual  identification  and  certification.  The 
statute  as  completely  aims  to  protect  the  persons  and  rights  of  all 
Chinese  persons  entitled  to  residential  privileges  as  it  does  to  prevent 
their  frauduleut  enjoyment  by  those  not  entitled  thereto. 

You  are  pleased  to  state  that  the  proceedings  which  led  to  this  legis- 
lation itself  were  not  required  by  any  existing  emergency  that  had 
arisen  between  tbe  two  nations,  but  in  this  you  overlook  the  circum- 
stance that  the  theretofore  existing  temporary  legislation  under  the 
old  treaties,  was  about  to  terminate  by  its  own  time  limitation,  as  also 
tlie  fact  that  the  abrupt  failure  of  the  negotiations  for  a  fuller  intern a- 
tional  accord  on  the  general  subject  had  not  only  devolved  upon  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  the  necessity  for  dealing  with  the  matter 
by  the  nimiicipal  resorts  pertaining  to  sovereignty,  but  had  moreover 
aroused  an  unfortunate  belief  that  the  attitude  of  China  was  obstruc- 
tive and  tlie  claims  of  Cliina  unreasonable.  That  this  belief  is  without 
solid  foundation  I  am  happy  to  assume;  tlnxt  it  did  exist  and  under 
tlie  circumstances  with  good  sliow  of  reason,  must  be  fraukly  admitted. 

Much  of  the  argument  in  tlie  preceding  notes  of  your  legation,  to 
>vhicli  you  refer  and  which  you  incorporate  in  your  present  notes,  rests 
upon  the  assumed  claim  that  the  status  of  Chinese  subjects  witli  re- 
spect to  the  body  politic  of  tlie  United  States  is  on  the  same  footing 
as  that  of  all  other  aliens  of  whatever  nationality.  Neither  in  the  light 
of  international  reciprocity  nor  in  that  of  municipal  sovereignty  can 
these  assumptions  liold  good.  The  restrictions  upon  foreigners  in  China 
j ire  special  and  onerous,  as  to  vocation,  residence,  and  travel,  and  are 
based  on  the  natural  barriers  wliich.  seem  to  forbid  the  assimilation  of 
tbe  foreign  element  with  the  native  Chinese  race.  This  condition  of 
iminiscibility  is  likewise  as  forcibly  i>resent  in  the  case  of  Chinese  in  the 
United  States  as  it  is  generally  absent  in  regard  to  aliens  of  the  same 
race  and  blood  as  our  own.  It  is  tlie  inherent  prerogative  of  sover- 
eignty to  take  cognizance  of  such  incompatibilities  and  to  provide  spe- 
cial conditions  for  tbe  toleration  of  the  unassimilable  element  in  the 
national  community.  Cliina's  treatment  of  foreigners  can  ouly  be  justi- 
fied on  such  grounds.  Moreover,  this  sovereign  right  is  freely  exer- 
cised by  the  United  States  in  the  adoption  of  restrictive  or  discrimina- 
tory legislation  in  regard  to  any  classes  of  alien  immigration  whenever 
i  lie  exigencies  of  tlie  public  interests  den  mud  aud  to  whatever  extc:^ 
nmy  be  requisite. 

As  I  have  said,  the  recent  reenactment  of  the  former  statutes  re- 
^ardino  Chinese  ])ersons  wjis  iiccoini)tinie(l  by  provisions  looking  to  the 
loi  iiinl  assiuaiice  to  tlie  ii^lividual  Cliinaman,  lawfully  resident  in  the 
I 'nilc(l  Stat(3S,  of  liberty  of  residence  and  pursuits  equally  Avith  the 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION. 


43 


citizen  of  this  country,  and  this,  too,  without  hiudrance  of  the  right  to 
establish  himself  where  and  how  lie  will  in  any  part  of  the  land.  The 
provisions  of  this  legislation  are  practically  designed  to  secure  to  such 
Chiuamen  privileges  and  a  measure  of  individual  freedom  far  beyond 
those  accorded  to  American  citizens  in  China,  both  in  degree  and  in 
the  number  of  those  who  possess  thein.  While  differing  in  detail  they 
are  believed  to  be,  in  the  maiu，  no  less  easy  of  falflllnient  than  the  con- 
ditions imposed  in  nearly  every  country  of  the  European  continent  for 
the  civil  registry  of  the  inhabitants  thereof.  You  allege  the  hardship 
and  the  un constitutionality  of  this  legislation.  工 am  unprepared  to 
admit  the  charge  of  hardship  until  the  practical  application  of  its  pro- 
visions shall  have  demonstrated  it  by  positive  proof. 

It  is  regrettable  that  the  attitude  of  the  Chinese  themselves  appears 
to  be  as  niucb  one  of  defiance  of  the  provisions  of  the  statute  as  tliat 
of  your  Government  is  of  protest  against  it  in  advance  of  a  fair  trial 
of  its  workings. 

As  for  the  charge  of  uncoustitutionality  brought  against  the  penal 
provisions  of  the  act  in  question,  that  is  a  matter  to  be  determined,  as 
you  are  doubtless  aware,  only  by  the  judicial  branch  of  the  Govern- 
ment,  which  is  as  freely  open  to  the  Chinese  subject  as  to  tlie  citizen  of 
the  United  States.  It  is  the  duty  of  tke  Executive  to  enforce  the  law, 
and  no  executive  power  exists  to  evade  or  repeal  it. 

The  province  of  the  executive  branch  in  this  discussion  is  to  bring 
about  a  better  understaiicliug  of  the  matter  and  to  reach  a  good  accord 
as  to  the  principles  iuvolved.  Such  an  accord  should  not  be  far  to 
seek.  As  you  say  in  your  note  of  the  7th  November:  " It  is  conceded 
that  the  Imperial  Governraeiit  lias  not  encouraged  the  emigration  ot 
its  people  from  China  to  the  United  States,  but,  on  the  contrary,  in  the 
negotiations  between  the  countries  on  the  subject,  it  lias  in  the  most 
frieudly  manuer  yielded  to  the  suspension  of  eioigratiou."  It  is  per- 
haps unfortunate  that  the  tangible  expression  of  this  frieudly  disposi- 
tion went  no  further  than  the  negotiations  which  preceded  the  collapse 
of  the  treaty  signed  in  1888.  I  see  no  reason  why  a  better  uud er- 
st an  ding  may  not  be  brought  about  whereby  the  position  of  China 
shall  be  rather  one  of  amicable  concurrence  toward  a  rational  and 
practical  eud  thau  one  of  obstruction  to  the  working  of  measures  the 
adoption  of  which  has  been  in  a  large  degree  forced  upon  the  legislative 
power  of  the  United  States  by  the  conduct  of  the  Chinese  people  in 
this  country  and  by  the  attitude  of  the  Imperial  Government  in  tlieir 
regard. 

Accept,  etc., 

William  F.  Wharton, 

Acting  Secretary. 


O 


